Forum Financial Data & Donations [Archive]

The Atheist

18th March 2009, 03:47 PM

The forum isn't an organization or entity of any sort. It's the property of the JREF.

No kidding?

That's probably why I mentioned JREF in my post and posted it at the JREF forum website.

Let me guess, next week you're going to tell us that space is big?

IRRC, TA, the only JREF-sponsored donation drive specific to the forum was for upgrading the server a couple of years back. All other JREF-generated donation requests have been for membership in The JREF. (Unless you're counting the auctions?)

See the "Donate to JREF" button at the top of every page? Do the mods not get that coming up?

I'm just interested to compare performances and as you probably know, I've mentioned forum finances before and I thought it was a good time to bring the subject up.

I suggest you try contacting the JREF directly for such information - no one on the Mod team has access to that type of information.

I have done so - I certainly didn't expect mods to have any idea, but Jeff Wagg does answer questions occasionally and I imagine he'd have the numbers at his fingertips.

jhunter1163

18th March 2009, 04:18 PM

Who cares? What difference does it make what percentage of JREF's revenue is used to maintain the Forum? My own opinion is that the expense is probably a comparatively small amount; but whether it's 5% or 10% or 20% is irrelevant. JREF is much more than this place.

jmercer

18th March 2009, 06:27 PM

No kidding?

See the "Donate to JREF" button at the top of every page? Do the mods not get that coming up?

I'm just interested to compare performances and as you probably know, I've mentioned forum finances before and I thought it was a good time to bring the subject up.

It's an interesting question... but one thing I've heard repeatedly over the years is that the Forum's not a money-maker. The perceived value to The JREF as something quite different, from conversations I've had with Jeff and others.

Frankly, if the forum were really bringing in significant income, do you think they would have added advertisements to help defer the expense of hosting it?

The Atheist

18th March 2009, 06:54 PM

It's an interesting question... but one thing I've heard repeatedly over the years is that the Forum's not a money-maker. The perceived value to The JREF as something quite different, from conversations I've had with Jeff and others.

Yep, I don't doubt that it's been a net cost against an unknown amount of goodwill.

Frankly, if the forum were really bringing in significant income, do you think they would have added advertisements to help defer the expense of hosting it?

No, that's exactly why I figured they were running ads - to recoup expenses and maybe make some profits. I was just pointing out that the donotion button exists, so I imagine it gets used.

rjh01

19th March 2009, 01:19 AM

For once I think I am close to agreement with The Atheist. Any money that does come in via the donate button should be counted as a benefit of the forum for JREF. After all if the forum went up in a puff of smoke these people are unlikely to donate to the JREF.

Another benefit to JREF of the forum is the educational value of the forum. Mind you, the benefit of that goes to the people of the world and not JREF.

Space is not just big. It is really, really big. So sorry to Douglas Adam.

Darat

19th March 2009, 03:35 AM

...snip..

See the "Donate to JREF" button at the top of every page? Do the mods not get that coming up?

...snip...

The "Donate to the JREF click here" takes you to the standard JREF donation page. It's not asking for a donation directly for the Forum and there is no way to even mark the donation as "coming from the Forum".

Cleon

19th March 2009, 09:50 AM

No kidding?

That's probably why I mentioned JREF in my post and posted it at the JREF forum website.

Well, what you're apparently not getting is that, since the forum is not a separate organization, the accounting information (expenses, income, etc) are probably not going to be separate from the rest of the JREF accounts.

So I'd imagine that the most information you're going to get is from what's already publicly available.

Let me guess, next week you're going to tell us that space is big?

Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is.

Terry

19th March 2009, 09:53 AM

Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is.

:confused: I thought it was a long way down the street to the chemists...

Cleon

19th March 2009, 09:54 AM

For once I think I am close to agreement with The Atheist. Any money that does come in via the donate button should be counted as a benefit of the forum for JREF. After all if the forum went up in a puff of smoke these people are unlikely to donate to the JREF.

Well, the Donate button goes to same link as the one on the main www.randi.org site. There's no way to differentiate.

The Atheist

19th March 2009, 11:59 AM

The "Donate to the JREF click here" takes you to the standard JREF donation page. It's not asking for a donation directly for the Forum and there is no way to even mark the donation as "coming from the Forum".

Darat, you are a master at the bleeding obvious - maybe you should look at a double act with Dr Adequate.

Well, the Donate button goes to same link as the one on the main www.randi.org site. There's no way to differentiate.

I'm glad you covered off the space is big issue, but a reprise really wasn't necessary, especially when Darat just played the same card.

Sorry, I'd expected that moderating a large site like JREF forum one of you might have been aware of how the internet and computers work. As this is clearly not the case, I'll gladly explain it in layman's terms for you:

The internet is a system of links, whereby you can travel from one place to the next. As you do this, your PC links with another PC, which is called a server. This server contains all of the information, posts and links for the organisation you have linked to.

Because computers know what they have done once they have done it, this server unit can tell whether a donation request has come via JREF or the JREF forum.

Imagine that!

The good people at JREF - if they choose to - can tell exactly which donations were received from which channel* - the .org or the forum.

Computers are truly an excellent innovation.

Whether JREF chooses to make that information public will probably wait until they respond to my e mail.

Meanwhile, if you have any further problems with understanding how your own system works, do let me know.

* Please note that I'm using channel in a figurative sense, as no physical channel actually exists.

Cleon

19th March 2009, 12:37 PM

I'm glad you covered off the space is big issue, but a reprise really wasn't necessary, especially when Darat just played the same card.

Sorry, I'd expected that moderating a large site like JREF forum one of you might have been aware of how the internet and computers work. As this is clearly not the case, I'll gladly explain it in layman's terms for you:

The internet is a system of links, whereby you can travel from one place to the next. As you do this, your PC links with another PC, which is called a server. This server contains all of the information, posts and links for the organisation you have linked to.

Because computers know what they have done once they have done it, this server unit can tell whether a donation request has come via JREF or the JREF forum.

Oh, wow. Condescension. Boy, are you clever and I just feel soooo stupid. :rolleyes:

Imagine that!

The good people at JREF - if they choose to - can tell exactly which donations were received from which channel* - the .org or the forum.
Yes, and in order to do so, they would have to track the transactions from the referral page on through to PayPal's returned data upon completion of the donation.

This would require a minor bit of recoding. Nothing major; having it set a cookie would be sufficient, with a quick post-donation check. However, unless they specifically decided to track that information, there would be no reason to do said recoding.

In any event...Said information would not be available now, which is what you're after.

And yes, I know how this works. I know how the Internet works better than you do. (That's not bluster. It's a cold, hard, fact, and I really don't give two ****s if you believe it or not.)

Whether JREF chooses to make that information public will probably wait until they respond to my e mail.Again...That information would not be available now, unless the JREF had already made the decision to track it.

Meanwhile, if you have any further problems with understanding how your own system works, do let me know.
I would, if I wanted an inaccurate description of the situation. Thank you for supplying one.

Darat

19th March 2009, 02:40 PM

Darat, you are a master at the bleeding obvious - maybe you should look at a double act with Dr Adequate.

I'm glad you covered off the space is big issue, but a reprise really wasn't necessary, especially when Darat just played the same card.

Sorry, I'd expected that moderating a large site like JREF forum one of you might have been aware of how the internet and computers work. As this is clearly not the case, I'll gladly explain it in layman's terms for you:

The internet is a system of links, whereby you can travel from one place to the next. As you do this, your PC links with another PC, which is called a server. This server contains all of the information, posts and links for the organisation you have linked to.

Because computers know what they have done once they have done it, this server unit can tell whether a donation request has come via JREF or the JREF forum.

Imagine that!

The good people at JREF - if they choose to - can tell exactly which donations were received from which channel* - the .org or the forum.

Computers are truly an excellent innovation.

Whether JREF chooses to make that information public will probably wait until they respond to my e mail.

Meanwhile, if you have any further problems with understanding how your own system works, do let me know.

* Please note that I'm using channel in a figurative sense, as no physical channel actually exists.

And since they do not "choose to" as I said there is no way to even mark the donation as "coming from the Forum".

The Atheist

19th March 2009, 07:38 PM

Oh, wow. Condescension. Boy, are you clever and I just feel soooo stupid. :rolleyes:

Well, if you go around making blatantly incorrect statements, I can but presume you don't know, so I thought I'd set it out in simple terms.

Yes, and in order to do so, they would have to track the transactions from the referral page on through to PayPal's returned data upon completion of the donation.

Incorrect again. Are you sure you know as much as you claim you do?

Hint: when blustering, it's best not to do it to someone who is quite capable of extracting the data in exactly the fashion I'm discussing. ;)

This would require a minor bit of recoding. Nothing major; having it set a cookie would be sufficient, with a quick post-donation check. However, unless they specifically decided to track that information, there would be no reason to do said recoding.

Sorry, but that's still wrong. The information is recorded. Remember how those linky things work? The reporting system may not be set up to provide that information, but it could easily be retrieved. It' just sitting there in the memory of the server, waiting for someone to ask it.

It's all so simple I truly am surprised an expert like yourself doesn't get it.

You're not right about being no need to record the details either - unless you want to claim JREF is an organisation with very sloppy accounting practice. It's contigent upon business owners to know which channels* provide which income.

*Note the different use of "channel". It still isn't a physical channel, but refers to the different forms of income stream - sales of merchandise, TAM receipts, membership fees, wtc. Sorry if this is confusing you.

In any event...Said information would not be available now, which is what you're after.

Interesting how you've gone from your initial "this is not possible" to the above, so you are learning.

And yes, I know how this works. I know how the Internet works better than you do. (That's not bluster. It's a cold, hard, fact, and I really don't give two ****s if you believe it or not.)

Just as well you quit as mod, that's not really very mod-like language for the public sections.

And since they do not "choose to" as I said there is no way to even mark the donation as "coming from the Forum".

Darat, you're about 5 km behind the thread at this stage, do try to keep up.

The only choice involved is whether JREF wishes to release the information. Re-stating the fallacy that "there's no way to tell" is just a bit silly, in my opinion. I couldn't have made the previous description any clearer, so if you aren't able to get it, I suggest you talk to Cleon - he's apparently teh ineterwebz guroo.

(Actually, looking at his difficulty understanding, maybe jmercer would be a better bet.)

Soapy Sam

19th March 2009, 07:52 PM

So, have you asked JREF for the data?

The Atheist

19th March 2009, 08:37 PM

So, have you asked JREF for the data?

Yep. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4529363#post4529363)

Once I'd said that I'm a little surprised there was anything to discuss, but there you go.

If a reply doesn't come through in a few days, I'll follow up on it.

Some people seem determined (maybe I should link to the free will thread?) to make a mountain out of a molehill of a question. To me, the funniest part is that it was a christian forum releasing its figures which made me ask - I'd like to think JREF is at least as open as a religious group.

UnrepentantSinner

19th March 2009, 11:08 PM

Haven't we been there and done that? Five years ago (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=22758)?

The Atheist

20th March 2009, 01:11 AM

Haven't we been there and done that? Five years ago (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=22758)?

Did you post that in the right thread?

I ask because a quick scan shows no relationship to this one, and even if the finances are stashed away in the thread somewhere, details from 5 years ago isn't going to be very relevant.

Darat

20th March 2009, 01:41 AM

choice[/B] involved is whether JREF wishes to release the information. Re-stating the fallacy that "there's no way to tell" is just a bit silly, in my opinion. I couldn't have made the previous description any clearer, so if you aren't able to get it, I suggest you talk to Cleon - he's apparently teh ineterwebz guroo.

(Actually, looking at his difficulty understanding, maybe jmercer would be a better bet.)

Your understanding of how the site is set-up (and indeed how "the internet" :rolleyes: works) is as wrong as many of your other claims about this Forum have been. The information that you seem to think exists does not exist. As Cleon mentioned there are ways of recording such information but they are not implemented here.

The Atheist

20th March 2009, 10:51 AM

Your understanding of how the site is set-up (and indeed how "the internet" :rolleyes: works) is as wrong as many of your other claims about this Forum have been.

Darat, you just keep telling yourself often enough and it may even come true.

Unfortunately, you miss the point that I do this stuff for money and I do know what I'm talking about. As is quite often the case, someone who derives actual income from the internet will often have better knowledge than some voluntary worker.

It's pretty funny though - and you give yourself away with the next comment:

The information that you seem to think exists does not exist. As Cleon mentioned there are ways of recording such information but they are not implemented here.

I suggest you try contacting the JREF directly for such information -no one on the Mod team has access to that type of information.

That's nice and unequivocal.

It shows that you realise the information exists, but isn't available to volunteers, being accounting information, and accordingly reserved for accounting and other paid staff to access. I didn't think for a second - and was clearly correct - that you personally have access to any of JREF's financial or accounting systems.

Please keep trying to obfuscate; you're such a pro at it that it'd be a shame to let your talents dry up.

But do stop contradicting yourself, old chap.

theprestige

20th March 2009, 11:12 AM

Jeff Wagg does answer questions occasionally and I imagine he'd have the numbers at his fingertips.
What evidence leads you to imagine this is the case?

It shows that you realise the information exists
No, it shows that Darat realises that type of information doesn't exist as far as he knows.

Are you sure you're actually a sceptic?

Cleon

20th March 2009, 11:16 AM

Well, if you go around making blatantly incorrect statements, I can but presume you don't know, so I thought I'd set it out in simple terms.

Incorrect again. Are you sure you know as much as you claim you do?

Hint: when blustering, it's best not to do it to someone who is quite capable of extracting the data in exactly the fashion I'm discussing. ;)

Sorry, but that's still wrong. The information is recorded. Remember how those linky things work? The reporting system may not be set up to provide that information, but it could easily be retrieved. It' just sitting there in the memory of the server, waiting for someone to ask it.

It's all so simple I truly am surprised an expert like yourself doesn't get it.

You're not right about being no need to record the details either - unless you want to claim JREF is an organisation with very sloppy accounting practice. It's contigent upon business owners to know which channels* provide which income.

*Note the different use of "channel". It still isn't a physical channel, but refers to the different forms of income stream - sales of merchandise, TAM receipts, membership fees, wtc. Sorry if this is confusing you.

Interesting how you've gone from your initial "this is not possible" to the above, so you are learning.

Just as well you quit as mod, that's not really very mod-like language for the public sections.

Darat, you're about 5 km behind the thread at this stage, do try to keep up.

The only choice involved is whether JREF wishes to release the information. Re-stating the fallacy that "there's no way to tell" is just a bit silly, in my opinion. I couldn't have made the previous description any clearer, so if you aren't able to get it, I suggest you talk to Cleon - he's apparently teh ineterwebz guroo.

(Actually, looking at his difficulty understanding, maybe jmercer would be a better bet.)

How cute. More condescension, and still completely devoid of content.

And no, you really don't know what you're talking about, as much as you'd like to pretend that you do.

Yes. I'm sure. Cope.

Darat

20th March 2009, 11:54 AM

Darat, you just keep telling yourself often enough and it may even come true.

Unfortunately, you miss the point that I do this stuff for money and I do know what I'm talking about. As is quite often the case, someone who derives actual income from the internet will often have better knowledge than some voluntary worker.

...snip...

It is rare that this smilie is the only appropriate answer:

:dl:

The Atheist

20th March 2009, 12:16 PM

Goodo, now we can just wait for the actual answer - from someone with access to the financial data you don't have.

(But excellent avoidance of your contradiction I noted: well played.)

Darat

20th March 2009, 01:34 PM

You meant avoidance of your goal post moving.

The Atheist

23rd March 2009, 12:03 PM

Well, it doesn't look as though any information will be forthcoming.

Linda has copied me an e mail of hers to Jeff Wagg asking if she can give out the information, to which he replied:

Phil is handling this. And this guy is no good. We have a long history.(bolding mine)

Thanks, Jeff!

(oh, and next time, remember to switch off the "CC" ;))

:dl:

Jeff Wagg

23rd March 2009, 12:59 PM

I don't know what Phil will do, but I didn't say anything in that e-mail that you don't already know.

The Atheist

23rd March 2009, 02:35 PM

Golly, what a quick response!

I don't know what Phil will do, but I didn't say anything in that e-mail that you don't already know.

No, I knew very well that you had that opinion, you've said it on the forum several times.

Whether it's reasonable for you to pass your personal opinion on in that fashion in your official capacity as a staff member of the JREF is a different question entirely, and one which I will cheerfully pursue.

Whether it's reasonable for an official of JREF to send e mails saying it to the sender is probably another question entirely and more of an internal problem for JREF than anyone else, I imagine.

I would also be happy to argue the "no good" with you in any format you care to choose, because I think you're blinded by personal like/dislike. For starters, I can guarantee you haven't read all of the e mails and letters I've shared with James Randi over 25+ years, so you should probably be more careful about your evidence, but again, that's not really my problem, is it?

And thanks to Darat for moving this to the public areas, it's certainly something which should be dealt with publicly, given that you have made it so by e mailing the comment.

ETA: I will just also note that at no stage during any correspondence with Phil Plait or Linda of JREF have I mentioned that I am The Atheist, all requests and e mails have been done under my actual name and business e mail address, so I can copy anything with 100% reliability should anyone wish to see the originals.

Darat

23rd March 2009, 03:52 PM

...snip...

And thanks to Darat for moving this to the public areas,

...snip..

Apart from of course I didn't move the thread....

The Atheist

23rd March 2009, 04:06 PM

Apart from of course I didn't move the thread....

Typical, I try to give you small praise for something and even that's wrong....

Thanks to whoever moved it then.

Jeff Wagg

23rd March 2009, 04:14 PM

It is my job to inform other JREF employees about people who wish to do the JREF harm, and you are one of those. I did in fact make a mistake by copying you on the mail, but it is you who made it public.

The Atheist

23rd March 2009, 04:36 PM

It is my job to inform other JREF employees about people who wish to do the JREF harm, and you are one of those.

So, now you're doubling up on it by claiming I wish to do the JREF harm.

That's an interesting posture.

I did in fact make a mistake by copying you on the mail,...

No kidding!

... but it is you who made it public.

Yes, but unfortunately, the far bigger issue is you, as a staff member of JREF making unsubstantiated [and false] claims about me to another staff member.

I'm quite happy to argue the point of whether I intend to cause JREF harm or not evidentially; heck, it's not as though my credibility and bona fides haven't been discussed a time or two in public.

On the other hand, you're quite welcome to accept that you erred and apologise for it, and being a fair sort of bloke, I'll accept it and leave the matter there.

Your move, Jeffrey.

recursive prophet

23rd March 2009, 10:57 PM

Jeff: I'm a long time fan and of James Randi, though a relatively new user in these forums. This is my first reply after being suspended last week after receiving 3 warnings for being off topic, so I'm quite confused about how this rule is applied. I assure you I am not threat to the JREF, and I'm concerned about being suspended again just for asking the following question.

I fail to see how this current segue has anything to do with the topic of this thread. Am I allowed to comment on how I perceive TA's role here, or must I confine my questions to why there is nothing available regarding the amount maintaining this site costs the JREF? Accounting so lax that nobody know's or is interested in knowing such info will hardly encourage supporters to contribute money-which I've done in the past-in these hard times.

IMVHO, if the purpose of the site is to promote the goals of JREF, any amount spent on overhead here is a waste of funds and counter productive. I would be happy to provide reasons, but only if given permission. For I've discovered to my dismay being able to differentiate between 'topic drift' and 'off topic' would require reading the minds of the staff. If I manage to avoid further mod action for OT posts, I may apply for the challenge money. :boxedin:

Thanks for any assistance you might be able to offer wrt this matter. -rp

rjh01

24th March 2009, 01:48 AM

Well, it doesn't look as though any information will be forthcoming.

Linda has copied me an e mail of hers to Jeff Wagg asking if she can give out the information, to which he replied:

(bolding mine)

Thanks, Jeff!

(oh, and next time, remember to switch off the "CC" ;))

:dl:

Thank you The Atheist for your honesty. Now we all know you are 'no good.'
Pure gold.

chillzero

24th March 2009, 03:26 AM

I'd suggest everyone get back on topic, and if that means no further responses until Phil responds, then so be it. The topic is not TA, it is his question about funding.

The Atheist

24th March 2009, 12:27 PM

Easy; I've started a new thread:

Is Alan Charman seeking to harm JREF?

recursive prophet

24th March 2009, 05:03 PM

Easy; I've started a new thread:

Is Alan Charman seeking to harm JREF?

And I noticed the other thread has also been moved again from Community(?), TA. Did this thread start there? I'm starting to get motion sickness. :confused:

Most non-profit foundations post their budget and expenses once a year. Is there anywhere potential contributors can see those numbers? It was mentioned so I assume there is, and I'd appreciate a link. Does it really make no statement wrt the costs of maintaining this site? Any ideas as to why these wouldn't be listed along with other cash outlays? Isn't the best way to see where things are going to 'follow the money?'

Thanks for starting this thread wherever it may end up TA! AAH is a heavy favorite.

godless dave

24th March 2009, 05:53 PM

The Atheist

24th March 2009, 06:28 PM

The Atheist, I run servers for a living too. And I can tell you that refering site information is not always logged.

Ok, I'll accept that the server may be so outdated that they don't have the details, or maybe NZ is just light years ahead of USA's software?

I can tell where every single one of my visitors across multiple sites has been referred from, but maybe I have better IT support than JREF.

No official answer has yet been forthcoming, but if that's the explanation, I'll accept it. With surprise that an organisation funded partly by forum donations doesn't know where they're coming from, but I'll accept it nonetheless.

hcmom

24th March 2009, 07:15 PM

Typical... and even that's wrong....

I know full damn well I'm quoting out of context, and probably derailing, but I couldn't help myself....

TsarBomba

24th March 2009, 07:43 PM

The Atheist, I run servers for a living too. And I can tell you that refering site information is not always logged.

As I see it, you are asking for two things:

How much the JREF forum costs to run

How much of the money donated to JREF comes from people visiting the forum.

The first item would be easy for the JREF to find out, and share if they wanted to. The second one is something they could start keeping track of if they wanted to.

I don't think that it is really "easy" for the JREF to come up with how much the forum costs to run, depending on how you want to calculate costs. Cost Accounting can be very tricky. Do you assign a percentage of building maintenance/depreciation because the server is located in the building? What about employee time monitoring the Forum? Do you include Phil's, Jeff's, and so forth's time when they check out what is on the forum? Do you include a percentage of their fringe benefits (assuming they get any)? Do you allocate a percentage of the IT budget in general? Utilities? I have no doubt that a lot this could be taken into consideration, but it would be time consuming and ultimately useless, except to satisfy TA's curiosity. You could give a simple hardware acquisition/maintenance cost, but I have a feeling that TA would want you to add in more and more things each time you announced the "cost" of the forum. It is not worth spending the time on just to satisfy TA's curiosity.

Also, just how would you calculate the percentage of JREF revenue attributable to the Forum? Raw donations from the "Donate" banner? What about people that go to TAM because they got involved in the forum? What about Forumites who buy something from the JREF store? What about a forumite that also reads the main page and donates there? Forumites that become official JREF members? There is no right and easy answer to this question.

It would be a waste of resources for the JREF to spend any time looking into TA's requests for information.

Little 10 Toes

24th March 2009, 07:43 PM

The Atheist

24th March 2009, 08:40 PM

It would be a waste of resources for the JREF to spend any time looking into TA's requests for information.

That would even be a reasonable answer. It would still have JREF a few points shy of the christian forum, but I haven't ever doubted that it's JREF's choice whether the information is posted.

I say just that in the OP:

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

A "no" would have answered the question.

Not to pile on you The Atheist, but do you keep track of the brand name of the shoes people wear when they enter into your home? Why not?

Because I don't keep track of bad analogies.

Cleon

25th March 2009, 10:28 AM

Ok, I'll accept that the server may be so outdated that they don't have the details, or maybe NZ is just light years ahead of USA's software?

I can tell where every single one of my visitors across multiple sites has been referred from, but maybe I have better IT support than JREF.

No official answer has yet been forthcoming, but if that's the explanation, I'll accept it. With surprise that an organisation funded partly by forum donations doesn't know where they're coming from, but I'll accept it nonetheless.

It's not a matter of looking up HTTP_REFERRER, though, even if they have it turned on (which is likely, as it's a default setting in Apache). That won't get you any financial information. That will just tell you how many people visited the Donation page as a result of clicking on the forum's Donate button. It won't tell you who actually contributed or how much.

Klimax

25th March 2009, 04:07 PM

It's not a matter of looking up HTTP_REFERRER, though, even if they have it turned on (which is likely, as it's a default setting in Apache). That won't get you any financial information. That will just tell you how many people visited the Donation page as a result of clicking on the forum's Donate button. It won't tell you who actually contributed or how much.

Not counting ways to block it.And as it is set up,even such info cannot be connected with paypal info.

And cookies are not reliable and have same problem as referrer.
For TA:fail

If you would use energy you focus on this forum to actually investigate it,you would find that no web mechanism without further cooperation with paypal cannot give you data you ask.

The Atheist

25th March 2009, 05:17 PM

For TA:fail

As I said to someone else, I accept that JREF might have weak accounting and tracking systems, but if so, it would have been enormously simple for them to have replied in that exact vein. "The information isn't available."

All so very easy, isn't it.

Here was Jeff's comment:

I don't know what Phil will do, but I didn't say anything in that e-mail that you don't already know.

Not: "Our information system doesn't have that information."

You're hysterically funny, though. Horribly naive about what constitutes a fail, but funny.

KoihimeNakamura

25th March 2009, 06:41 PM

No, it's more paypal doesn't track for where it goes, and I imagine that there is no simple way to do it short of creating it's own payment system. Which, you'll note, the JREF doesn't have.

MattC

25th March 2009, 09:47 PM

I'm going to principally address this post to recursive_prophet, and it seems TA's claim is somewhat parallel so it will (hopefully) be addressed herein, I beg either of you to alert me if you have further questions in this matter.

Most non-profit foundations post their budget and expenses once a year. Is there anywhere potential contributors can see those numbers? It was mentioned so I assume there is, and I'd appreciate a link. Does it really make no statement wrt the costs of maintaining this site? Any ideas as to why these wouldn't be listed along with other cash outlays? Isn't the best way to see where things are going to 'follow the money?'

Yes and no.

First, getting something out of the way, you can find the JREF's most recent 990 form (from 2008) here: http://www2.guidestar.org/ReportNonProfit.aspx?ein=65-0649443&Mode=GxLite&lid=523196&dl=True

You'll need to register before being able to download it as a PDF file.

Perhaps the most specific breakdown can be found on page five of the federal taxes section, titled "Other Functional Expenses." This page is generally designed to give both the federal government and any other potential viewer of the document an analysis of the organization's operating (e.g. 'related to the functioning of the organization') expenses. However this page does this in a very general format (as it should), I'll repost the section in question here for anyone that doesn't have a GuideStar account:

(my apologies in advance for the terrible formatting, I'm not sure of a way to fix it in this forum)
[Name Total Expenses // Program Service // Management & General // Fund-Raising]

Expenses:
Communications 21,585 // 18,777 // 1,300 // 1,508
Awards 13,709 // 13,709
Insurance 14,553 // 8,819 // 5,210 // 524
Cleaning and Maintenance 13,160 // 7,975 // 4,711 // 474
Advertising and Marketing 16,090
Consulting Fees 12,611 // 12,611
Credit Card Fees 19,981 // 9,990 // 9,991
Office 9,336 // 5,304 // 3,153 // 879
Utilities 6,957 // 4,216 // 2,491 // 250
Miscellaneous 249

Totals: 128,231 // 81,401 // 27,105 // 19,725

A safe bet is that website costs in general are couched in the "Communications" expense section, but trying to separate out the specific cost of the forum from the many other costs involved in communications (website costs in general being but one example) is impossible with the information contained in the 990 form.

Please let me know if I can be of further help in this matter.

~ Matt

hcmom

25th March 2009, 10:23 PM

I don't know what Phil will do, but I didn't say anything in that e-mail that you don't already know.

Not: "Our information system doesn't have that information."

You're hysterically funny, though. Horribly naive about what constitutes a fail, but funny.

So when Jeff says it's not up to him to provide you with that info, you decided that he was trying to avoid the issue, not to say that it isn't up to him to provide that info?

recursive prophet

25th March 2009, 11:07 PM

MattC: Thanks a lot for taking the time to post your answer to my question. I must admit to being a bit stunned by how small the numbers are. I certainly didn't envision JREF as any behemoth, but I didn't think it was that small. Puts things in a different perspective. I really appreciate your reply. Kudos Matt!

The Atheist

26th March 2009, 12:44 AM

So when Jeff says it's not up to him to provide you with that info, you decided that he was trying to avoid the issue, not to say that it isn't up to him to provide that info?

No, and if you followed the thread, you'd be aware of that. I sent two e mails to JREF before Jeff Wagg joined the thread or copied me an e mail incorrectly.

Jeff didn't say it wasn't up to him to provide the information, and since you copied his post, I'd expect that to be self-evident. At no stage has anyone from JREF made any comment on whether the information exists.

Given the ease with which "The information doesn't exist" could have been posted or e mailed, I think it's likely it does exists, but nobody's very keen to answer.

rjh01

26th March 2009, 01:45 AM

KoihimeNakamura

26th March 2009, 02:39 AM

... Er, TA.

Or, maybe, they just don't care to respond to silly questions?

The Atheist

26th March 2009, 03:01 AM

... Er, TA.

Or, maybe, they just don't care to respond to silly questions?

But since they did respond, even "We don't answer silly questions" would make more sense.

Please do keep trying to defend the indefensible - I've already shown just how simple and fast an answer could have been made.

MattC

26th March 2009, 03:51 AM

So it costs a subset of $18,777 to run this forum for a year. That is not much. But then you can run a basic forum with advertising for almost nothing.

This forum also helps JREF achieve its objectives. I just wonder what the world would have been like if James Randi had vetoed the idea of a forum so many years ago?

The $18,777 figure you mention is listed on the 990 form as being the "Program Services" fee under the communications section. This fee is not limited simply to the running of the forum as your post implies, it includes additional elements as well (software licenses, hardware costs, off-site storage {if used}, bandwidth fees, and a lot of things not directly related to the internet - it is a general expense column after all {airline tickets may count for one}).

Bear in mind that the 990 form is for the JREF as a whole, and the question here relates to something very specific (this web forum, which is really little more than a combination of a memory bank, a server, and Terry shamelessly working to keep it together). Determining the specific local cost for this forum from the information contained within the 990 form is impossible due to the generality of the information the 990 possesses (it is designed to communicate overall data rather than specific incidents {they don't say, for example, how much the TAM for the 2007-2008 fiscal year made them but they do say how much they earned from all events during the year}).

Please let me know if there are any more questions in this area.

~ Matt

MattC

26th March 2009, 04:29 AM

It occurs to me as well that the major issue here may be much simpler than I've been thinking up until now (these moments of revelation keep me up at nights).

Donations given through the link are sent to the JREF as a testament of the donator's faith in the organization's stated goals and methods of reaching those goals. The JREF has many different ways of advancing these goals, of which this forum is only one (TAM, TAA, lectures, and so on). Running a web forum is certainly one of the JREF's many activities, but it is not the only one. Donating money to the JREF in general as opposed to specific assets thereof allows the foundation to determine what areas need money the most and to allocate needed funds there, giving them a much greater flexibility (and greater ability to advance its goals).

The great majority of other web forums do not operate like this - their goal is simply to run a web forum. Admittedly I do not know anything about this Christian forum you choose to visit, but it seems to me that a lack of organizational diversity could explain the differences. A web forum seeking only to maintain itself will naturally be able to furnish better information upon how money is spent on the web forum because they have no other obligations to maintain.

~ Matt

The Atheist

30th March 2009, 12:18 PM

And still no communication at all from JREF itself.

Can't say that I'm surprised...

Phlebas

30th March 2009, 12:50 PM

And still no communication at all from JREF itself.

Can't say that I'm surprised...

I'm surprised that they didn't drop everything and dedicate the entire staff's time to researching your relevant and poignant question. Especially when you have been such a pleasure to work with and have proven to be a friend to the JREF.

Perhaps some of them (erroneously, obviously) have gotten the nutty idea that you aren't planning on doing anything useful with this information and are simply whining for those numbers in an attempt to waste everyone's time and generally garner more attention?

I, of course, would take a bullet for you if it meant you could find out how much time and money is lost when Linda stops on her way in to the office for a Starbucks. But those Great Information Hoarders might just be waiting for a reason to jump through these hoops? Just guessing.

The Atheist

30th March 2009, 01:03 PM

...blether removed...

How hard would it have been?

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

No

Phlebas

30th March 2009, 01:11 PM

How hard would it have been?

Again, not speaking for them. I am a footsoldier in your Great War Of Terribly Important Information Sharing.

But just maybe Jeff didn't know the answer, so he forwarded it on to Linda with an oblique hint that she need not kill herself for the answer. Then you got wind of it, the thread went up in smoke, and IN THEIR EYES you'd been behaving like a petulant child and they are content to let you sit and spin instead of reinforcing your behavior by taking the time to answer.

It appears to me, a lowly footsoldier, that the information is not coming. Either it's not obtainable at all or not easily enough for them to justify the effort just because someone demands it -- surely you forgive them for not seeing the inherent worthiness of your request?

Some of those obstinate JREFers have oblique senses of humor -- maybe they are enjoying you dangling here in vain, awaiting information so you can finish whatever stunning and worthy project you have started.

Again, don't ask me. I'm just cannon fodder.

The Atheist

30th March 2009, 01:55 PM

Some of those obstinate JREFers have oblique senses of humor -- maybe they are enjoying you dangling here in vain, awaiting information so you can finish whatever stunning and worthy project you have started.

Wasting their time. My expectation of getting the data is nil - I just like to confirm that it hasn't been released, or any reasons given for its non-release, in case anyone reads the thread and wonders.

Again, don't ask me. I'm just cannon fodder.

Funny you have so much to say on the subject then.

Phlebas

30th March 2009, 03:39 PM

Wasting their time. My expectation of getting the data is nil - I just like to confirm that it hasn't been released, or any reasons given for its non-release, in case anyone reads the thread and wonders.

So you are performing a valuable public service! I knew it was something like that. You are speaking up for the downtrodden masses who need such pertinent information but are unable to ask for it themselves. Perhaps we should call you The Altruist?

Still... it could be that the JREF employees don't see The Big Picture, and only see the part where you are trying to waste their time by demanding a breakdown of information that could not possibly of any direct use to you?

Maybe in the future, Jeff Wagg and Phil Plait will have broadened their minds enough to see that it's worth their time to stop everything because The Atheist has yet another desire for an obscure piece of information. For now, forgive them, for they know not what they're doing.

The Atheist

30th March 2009, 04:19 PM

Still... it could be that the JREF employees don't see The Big Picture, and only see the part where you are trying to waste their time by demanding a breakdown of information that could not possibly of any direct use to you?

Nope - still a stupid argument, as it would have taken but a few seconds to note that the information isn't going to be forthcoming.

Unfortunately, that sweeps all of your attempted sarcasm into the dustbin it belongs in.

Maybe in the future, Jeff Wagg and Phil Plait will have broadened their minds enough to see that it's worth their time to stop everything because The Atheist has yet another desire for an obscure piece of information. For now, forgive them, for they know not what they're doing.

Lovely exercise in logical fallacies and failed sarcasm, but to what end?

If you're trying to point something out, you've failed miserably, because the points have all been made, except for why it's such a big deal.

Nice of you to display the lengths some people will go to attempt to make a case out of nothing at all. (Actually, less than nothing, because it hasn't yet been explained by JREF as to whether the information even exists, or the difficulty in obtaining it.)

Pray continue - it's probably a good show for lurkers to try to figure why some bloke is trying to defend the indefensible.

Morrigan

30th March 2009, 05:14 PM

Sorry, I'd expected that moderating a large site like JREF forum one of you might have been aware of how the internet and computers work. As this is clearly not the case, I'll gladly explain it in layman's terms for you:

Inane condescension aside, you are completely wrong. As was pointed out, the HTTP_REFERER would only track the clicks to the donation page, and even that information isn't reliable. After that, the visitor may be taken to a Paypal payment page if s/he chooses to, and that referer information will then be lost since it's not passed along (not automatically, anyway).

Meanwhile, if you have any further problems with understanding how your own system works, do let me know.

This would be really obnoxious and arrogant, if it weren't so cutely ironic...

Incorrect again. Are you sure you know as much as you claim you do?

I am a web software developer, and I'm at least the third person to tell you you don't know what you're talking about. Maybe that should start sinking in.

Sorry, but that's still wrong. The information is recorded. Remember how those linky things work? The reporting system may not be set up to provide that information, but it could easily be retrieved. It' just sitting there in the memory of the server, waiting for someone to ask it.

Assuming randi.org runs on an Apache server, you're going to have to cross-reference the referrers from the Apache logs with... what, exactly? Paypal doesn't provide the IP of the originating transactions unless the merchant previously passed it along in a custom field -- and he'd have to pass along other info to be able to cross-reference with the Apache logs, anyway -- so yes, it would require coding work (at which point, using a cookie or session variable would be much easier anyway), not just parsing existing data "sitting there", as you claim. And the HTTP_REFERER header is known to be unreliable. It's an interesting piece of information to see where some your traffic comes from, but it should never be used for anything else.

You're not right about being no need to record the details either - unless you want to claim JREF is an organisation with very sloppy accounting practice. It's contigent upon business owners to know which channels* provide which income.

As a business owner who makes money with websites, including a site who receives donations, I can't help but laugh at you. I couldn't give a damn if the donaters come from my site's forum or not. It's simply unnecessary information to track in my case, and I suspect it's the same with the JREF. "Very sloppy"? Not even remotely.

You're hysterically funny, though.

Keep throwing those big rocks in your pretty glass house.

All that aside -- why the hell would you care about how much of the donations come from forum members and/or people who clicked the donation button from the forum? What does it matter to you?

The Atheist

30th March 2009, 05:29 PM

Assuming randi.org runs on an Apache server...

Since I stay away from assumptions, I'll continue to wait for someone who knows rather than is guessing.

As I've said, these assumptions may well be right and that NZ server software is infinitely superior to that in use in USA, but until we have a definitive answer, we'd be assuming - see above.

All that aside -- why the hell would you care about how much of the donations come from forum members and/or people who clicked the donation button from the forum?

See the OP.

Phlebas

30th March 2009, 06:36 PM

Nope - still a stupid argument, as it would have taken but a few seconds to note that the information isn't going to be forthcoming.

A lesser person would think so, yet you have majestically kept trying for two weeks! Brava!

Unfortunately, that sweeps all of your attempted sarcasm into the dustbin it belongs in.

You WOUND me. What makes you think I'm being sarcastic? I just exuberantly want you to have the information you clearly so desperately need. You have plugged away at it for two weeks of your life, which you will not get back, and so far achieved nothing but the continuing ill will of fellow posters.

This makes me sad. I just want you to get SOMETHING out of all this.

Lovely exercise in logical fallacies and failed sarcasm, but to what end?

I'm a double-agent. I want the others to think I'm being sarcastic, but I'm totally on your side. This information definitely needs to get out. In fact, once you get it, let's rent a billboard!

If you're trying to point something out, you've failed miserably, because the points have all been made, except for why it's such a big deal.

I confess that I don't know why it's a big deal. It baffles me why anyone would have the slightest interesting in such an esoteric thing. But I have faith in YOU. BFFs?

Nice of you to display the lengths some people will go to attempt to make a case out of nothing at all.

You give me too much credit. It ain't no big thang.

(Actually, less than nothing, because it hasn't yet been explained by JREF as to whether the information even exists, or the difficulty in obtaining it.)

Alas, at this point, I think it's a secret you will take to your grave. Few are the people who could hang with this issue for two weeks. You might be unique in that aspect, even.

Pray continue - it's probably a good show for lurkers to try to figure why some bloke is trying to defend the indefensible.

I serve in my own way. I have not your selflessness, since I honestly doubt I can maintain interest in this much longer. Forgive my weakness...

MattC

30th March 2009, 07:11 PM

How hard would it have been?

Very.

You say:

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.

I've attempted to point out several times that it is functionally impossible to determine the financial underpinnings of this forum - the publicly available information (the 990 form) is not that specific. Particularly, I covered the matter in some detail in this post: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4553198#post4553198

I'm going to presume you've read that so you know that the 990 is of very little use to you here save as a generalized value of many distinct costs. The publicly available information, therefore, will not be of much use to you in this endeavor - I'm sure someone with your expertise in this field could arrive at a fairly accurate figure by adding up the hardware costs and software fees, which is probably going to take less time than messing around with whatever this HTTP_REFERRER thing is you technical people keep shouting around.

MattC: Thanks a lot for taking the time to post your answer to my question. I must admit to being a bit stunned by how small the numbers are. I certainly didn't envision JREF as any behemoth, but I didn't think it was that small. Puts things in a different perspective. I really appreciate your reply. Kudos Matt!

No problem. The numbers are low yes, but bear in mind that a non-profit organization cannot by law retain a large sum of money without an excellent reason for doing so. I'm afraid that I've forgotten the poster's name, but in another thread dealing with JREF finances someone wisely said "for-profit organizations make money to make money, non-profit organizations make money to spend money." I'm sorry that I've forgotten who said it, as it's an excellent analogy to the current situation.

The Atheist

30th March 2009, 07:24 PM

Very.

No - answered many times.

"We don't have that information"

Took me about 2 seconds to type it, give it three for pushing POST and waiting.

5 seconds, tops.

lionking

30th March 2009, 07:41 PM

I'm afraid that I've forgotten the poster's name, but in another thread dealing with JREF finances someone wisely said "for-profit organizations make money to make money, non-profit organizations make money to spend money."

True, but "where does the money go?" is a valid question. I work for a not-for-profit company, our staff are well rewarded and we are proud of it.

MattC

30th March 2009, 08:16 PM

No - answered many times.

"We don't have that information"

Took me about 2 seconds to type it, give it three for pushing POST and waiting.

5 seconds, tops.

My mistake for presuming that you would be satisfied with such an admission. I intended to demonstrate that the public finances of the JREF would not be able to locate you the data you seek.

True, but "where does the money go?" is a valid question. I work for a not-for-profit company, our staff are well rewarded and we are proud of it.

The information he desires to find (I'm presuming that this is an honest inquiry for relevant data) is not contained within the public domain nor the apparent method of obtaining the data he suggested (this HTTP_REFERRER thing). Judging by the information presented on the donate page, the money goes to the JREF itself and is from there disseminated as befits need.

~ Matt

hcmom

30th March 2009, 09:50 PM

No - answered many times.

"We don't have that information"

Took me about 2 seconds to type it, give it three for pushing POST and waiting.

5 seconds, tops.

Yes, but you seem to care a lot more than the JREF that you want the information.

UnrepentantSinner

30th March 2009, 10:09 PM

Does anyone else who has been around a long time get the smell of "I can do it better than they can" in this thread?

Reading over some old threads recently I was struck by all the self-identified experts who thought they could run the forum better than Hal and the mod staff could back in the day. I can't recall anyone here who felt they knew better than Randi and the JREF BOD/staff who could run the foundation better than it currently was though. There's a stench of narcicism in a lot of those old threads - and this one. Oddly enough, people like TamiO, EvilYeti and Xouper are long gone and all their bitching and offers to make things better amounted to nothing.

Wonder if that's because their good ideas were rejected or because they weren't as good as they thought.

The Atheist

31st March 2009, 12:07 AM

My mistake for presuming that you would be satisfied with such an admission. I intended to demonstrate that the public finances of the JREF would not be able to locate you the data you seek.

yes, but unfortunately, not being privy to the operation of JREF - unless you're an employee - you're just assuming, same as all the others.

Yes, but you seem to care a lot more than the JREF that you want the information.

No, I don't care at all.

I wondered if the JREF would be as free with its financial data as a church group is, and the answer is clearly "no".

Seriously - can you please, please, please get your mom to send you to TAM? Please?

I'm beginning to worry about your state of mind, CS - you keep following me around various threads inviting me to a Tim-Tam. Are you feeding an obsession? If not, and you have something to say, why not try saying it?

I promise not to destroy you as badly as the last..... every time we've debated.

Go on, 'fess up - I'll go easy on you; I understand the pain you're in in your [lack of] love life. I had that problem for an hour once.

MattC

31st March 2009, 12:15 AM

yes, but unfortunately, not being privy to the operation of JREF - unless you're an employee - you're just assuming, same as all the others.

I do not see what I am assuming in pointing out that the 990 (the only publicly available information the JREF is required to release about their finances) does not have the specific information you require.

I wondered if the JREF would be as free with its financial data as a church group is, and the answer is clearly "no".

They're as free with their financial data as the law requires, asking them for any more than that is essentially asking them for a favor - judging by the responses you've gotten, they don't seem willing to bother. I've also pointed out several reasons why the specific data you desire is probably unattainable even if I were an employee of the JREF.

~ Matt

The Atheist

31st March 2009, 01:04 AM

I do not see what I am assuming in pointing out that the 990 (the only publicly available information the JREF is required to release about their finances) does not have the specific information you require.

There's no assumption in that part, no, and I'm fully aware of the 990 - there's a 15-page thread on it somewhere.

They're as free with their financial data as the law requires, asking them for any more than that is essentially asking them for a favor - judging by the responses you've gotten, they don't seem willing to bother.

That's one of the assumptions - that the data doesn't exist - because that hasn't been confirmed at any time.

I've also pointed out several reasons why the specific data you desire is probably unattainable even if I were an employee of the JREF.

~ Matt

They were the other assumptions, although speculation's probably a better description in your case.

Morrigan

31st March 2009, 08:57 AM

Since I stay away from assumptions, I'll continue to wait for someone who knows rather than is guessing.

Hahahaha - You're the one who kept insisting you knew more about that kind of thing than the others initially. :newlol

Besides, I don't even need to assume anything: I have the means to verify it (a simple glance at the site's response headers will do the trick), and I just did: randi.org does run on an Apache 2.0 server.

That's one of the assumptions - that the data doesn't exist - because that hasn't been confirmed at any time.
Since randi.org runs on an Apache server, I can reiterate what I've already said about the logs. The referrer information isn't tracked all the way to Paypal, so there's no way to know how much of the donations come from the forum. And the reason it's this way is no doubt because nobody cares.

Cleon

31st March 2009, 09:28 AM

Hahahaha - You're the one who kept insisting you knew more about that kind of thing than the others initially. :newlol

Besides, I don't even need to assume anything: I have the means to verify it (a simple glance at the site's response headers will do the trick), and I just did: randi.org does run on an Apache 2.0 server.

I talk to Terry a fair bit, so I kinda already knew.

But it doesn't matter if it's Apache, IIS, or nginx. The only way it would collect the sort of information TA wants is if it was specifically coded to do so, and the effort/benefit ratio there doesn't seem to make it worthwhile.

Magical kiwi-based technology notwithstanding, of course. :rolleyes:

I'm reminded of something someone said...

Hint: when blustering, it's best not to do it to someone who is quite capable of extracting the data in exactly the fashion I'm discussing.

I've decided to coin a new word, in honor of The Atheist. "Bullster." It's what happens when someone tries to bluster and BS at the same time, like TA is doing above.

The Atheist

31st March 2009, 11:13 AM

Hahahaha - You're the one who kept insisting you knew more about that kind of thing than the others initially.

In general terms, that appears to be the case.

In terms of JREF - I've stated several times that I have no idea what their particular system does.

It's still factual that getting the information is simple - depending on the desire, which may not exist.

I talk to Terry a fair bit, so I kinda already knew.

But it doesn't matter if it's Apache, IIS, or nginx. The only way it would collect the sort of information TA wants is if it was specifically coded to do so, and the effort/benefit ratio there doesn't seem to make it worthwhile.

Again - a lengthy example of apologetics on the basis of no knowledge at all.

Terry appears to be a volunteer for the forum, and almost cretainly has no input or ability to retrieve information from the JREF accounting system.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

I do find it cute that the fan club is doing headless chicken impressions - all to cover up for the fact that no information has been posted yet.

Morrigan

31st March 2009, 11:20 AM

In general terms, that appears to be the case.

In terms of JREF - I've stated several times that I have no idea what their particular system does.

Yet you keep insisting that geez, either their servers are inferior to magical kiwi technology, and that this information is obviously being tracked (or "sitting there" on the server), and if not well goshdarnit they sure are sloppy. :rolleyes: I could forgive your ignorance if you hadn't been so hilariously pretentious about it.

Why don't you just admit that you are clueless about the technology and good practices, that you were quite simply wrong, and give up your inane argument?

Cleon

31st March 2009, 11:28 AM

Again - a lengthy example of apologetics on the basis of no knowledge at all.

You mean, aside from a rather in-depth knowledge of web servers, web application development, and software engineering?

No, no, I have no knowledge at all. :rolleyes:

Terry appears to be a volunteer for the forum, and almost cretainly has no input or ability to retrieve information from the JREF accounting system.[

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
You're absolutely right, don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

Like the fact that I never said, implied, or hinted that Terry has that sort of ability.

More TA bullster.

I do find it cute that the fan club is doing headless chicken impressions - all to cover up for the fact that no information has been posted yet."Cover up." Yeah.

We told you the information wasn't going to be available. We even explained why.

The JREF, mysteriously, didn't provide the information.

But you caught on. You got us. We're just "covering up" for the JREF. Because...Well, I don't know why we're "covering up," or what we're actually supposed to be covering up for. It's just something we do, I guess. :rolleyes:

Do you even think about these things before you post? Or are you really infatuated with yourself that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, you still genuinely believe you have some sort of legitimate point?

The Atheist

31st March 2009, 11:54 AM

Yet you keep insisting that geez, either their servers are inferior to magical kiwi technology, and that this information is obviously being tracked (or "sitting there" on the server), and if not well goshdarnit they sure are sloppy.

As I keep saying, I know it's quite possible, because we keep track of that data.

Whether JREF does is anyone's guess.

And yes, I do consider it sloppy if they don't. A non-profit that doesn't know where its money is coming from? I'd call that sloppy, no matter whether your turnover's $10,000 or $10,000,000.

Like the fact that I never said, implied, or hinted that Terry has that sort of ability.

More TA bullster.

Bullster?

You said:

I talk to Terry a fair bit, so I kinda already knew.

Now, let me see... the thread is entitled Forum Financial Data and Donations and the entire discussion has been about the financial data of the forum, so when you refer to Terry as a technical expert, you are clearly referring to his knowledge on forum financial data.

Now, you never meant to use Terry as a technical expert on forum financial data.

And pointing it out is bull....

Ok.

"Cover up." Yeah.

Given that not one of you has any relevant information, but keep posting, what else would I think?

You don't have access to the information, and you've already admitted that you don't know anything about the JREF accounting system.

You're posting endless screeds of speculation in a thread which can be answered in a one-line post.

It seems awfully like covering up to me. I'm not implying that there's any kind of concerted covering up involved, but the endless speculation is getting in the way of the only point that matters:

The information or an explanation hasn't been posted.

We told you the information wasn't going to be available. We even explained why.

Laughable.

Predictable, but laughable. See previous paragraph. Keerist, this just makes me choke on my Earl Grey Tea - if you expect the kind of "evidence" posted here so far to be any kind of authority, you'd be a raving deist or something else equally "woo".

Oh no, that's right - you are!

Evidence, sunshine. You ain't got none. As I keep explaining, until someone with some authority - i.e. from JREF - posts either the information, a denial, or an reason why it isn't, all you've done is wave your arms.

Or, in your case, your flag.

The JREF, mysteriously, didn't provide the information.

Still hasn't.

I think a Sylvia Browne-style clock ought to do the trick.

Cleon

31st March 2009, 12:09 PM

Bullster?

You said:

I talk to Terry a fair bit, so I kinda already knew.

Yes, I said that, in response to this statement: "I have the means to verify it (a simple glance at the site's response headers will do the trick), and I just did: randi.org does run on an Apache 2.0 server."

So, as is obvious to anyone reading my post, I was referring to the fact that I already knew the JREF forum was running Apache.

Nothing to do with accounting. That's something you just plain old made up.

Now, you never meant to use Terry as a technical expert on forum financial data.

And pointing it out is bull....

Ok.

No, lying about it (as you are) is bull. Why you feel the need to lie about something so trivial, I don't know, but your inability to admit error seems to prevent you from doing otherwise.

Given that not one of you has any relevant information, but keep posting, what else would I think?

You don't have access to the information, and you've already admitted that you don't know anything about the JREF accounting system.

Because it has nothing to do with the JREF accounting system, genius. It's got to do with the web site, and how web sites work.

You're posting endless screeds of speculation in a thread which can be answered in a one-line post.

Wrong.

It seems awfully like covering up to me.

I know it does, because acknowledging reality would mean admitting that you really have no idea what you're talking about. And that's simply not an option.

I'm not implying that there's any kind of concerted covering up involved,

That's what the phrase "cover up" means, genius.

The information or an explanation hasn't been posted.

No, no, it hasn't. Amazing, isn't it?

You post your request. We explain that it isn't feesible to get the information you want. And, mysteriously, the information doesn't get posted!

It's absolutely mind-boggling.

Laughable.

Predictable, but laughable. See previous paragraph. Keerist, this just makes me choke on my Earl Grey Tea - if you expect the kind of "evidence" posted here so far to be any kind of authority, you'd be a raving deist or something else equally "woo".

Oh no, that's right - you are!

Ooh, more bullster. And you even managed to work in the bit about how I've committed the horrible crime of not being an atheist, which pretty much establishes that you've got nothing.

Actual content: Zero.

Evidence, sunshine. You ain't got none.

Evidence for what? Evidence that web servers work the way I say they work?

Go to www.apache.org. All the information is there.

As I keep explaining, until someone with some authority - i.e. from JREF - posts either the information, a denial, or an reason why it isn't, all you've done is wave your arms.

Or, in your case, your flag.

So you're going to keep on ranting about stuff you don't know about, until...Well, we really don't know. I assume at some point you'll get tired, and go looking for some other way to try and grab attention for yourself.

Still hasn't.

And won't. So either figure out a way to cope with this disappointment, or get on with your life.

I think a Sylvia Browne-style clock ought to do the trick.

Riiiiight. Good luck with that. I imagine it'll be taken as seriously as your "$2 million challenge."

hcmom

31st March 2009, 12:15 PM

You said:

I talk to Terry a fair bit, so I kinda already knew.

Now, let me see... the thread is entitled Forum Financial Data and Donations and the entire discussion has been about the financial data of the forum, so when you refer to Terry as a technical expert, you are clearly referring to his knowledge on forum financial data.

Now, you never meant to use Terry as a technical expert on forum financial data.

And pointing it out is bull....

Ok.

Actually, the conversation went like this:

Besides, I don't even need to assume anything: I have the means to verify it (a simple glance at the site's response headers will do the trick), and I just did: randi.org does run on an Apache 2.0 server.
I talk to Terry a fair bit, so I kinda already knew.

It seems fairly obvious that he was citing Terry as being a source of knowing technical information, not financial...

Delscottio

31st March 2009, 12:29 PM

And yes, I do consider it sloppy if they don't. A non-profit that doesn't know where its money is coming from? I'd call that sloppy, no matter whether your turnover's $10,000 or $10,000,000.

I must admit I'd be very surprised if income streams weren't monitored by any organisation simply for evaluation purposes to see whats working and whats not etc.

But TA, after reading this thread, why are you so interested?

From reading this and other threads there seems to be some sort of "problem" between you and the JREF, so I suppose I am asking do you have an ulterior motive for this request? If I have this wrong apologies.

Anyway continue with the bickering everyone, nothing better than a good argument over pretty much pointless stuff!

The Atheist

31st March 2009, 12:46 PM

It seems fairly obvious that he was citing Terry as being a source of knowing technical information, not financial...

Thanks for that - it being the only part Cleon's mentioning which even bears comment.

I know - but since the topic is Forum Financial Data and Donations it was completely irrelevant, so worth playing with, because it highlights the fact that he doesn't have access to the information and is therefore stating the worthless.

I must admit I'd be very surprised if income streams weren't monitored by any organisation simply for evaluation purposes to see whats working and whats not etc.

Ah, a sensible person!

Thank god for that.

But TA, after reading this thread, why are you so interested?

Long story, which is pointless to recount now, but as I said in the OP, the trigger was a christian forum publishing the information because it wanted its members to know. I wondered whether the same spirit of openness would exist at JREF.

At least that question's been answered.

From reading this and other threads there seems to be some sort of "problem" between you and the JREF, so I suppose I am asking do you have an ulterior motive for this request? If I have this wrong apologies.

No, that's a fair assumption, so there's no need to apologise.

It is wrong, though.

Anyway continue with the bickering everyone, nothing better than a good argument over pretty much pointless stuff!

Makes a change from religion!

And it keeps bumping the thread which is all to the good.

Lrrr

31st March 2009, 01:41 PM

As I keep saying, I know it's quite possible, because we keep track of that data.

Perhaps you could share what web software you are using and what you use to track this data. There appears to be a number of posters in this thread who do web development for a living and this could be an excellent tool in their arsenal. I doubt that what you are using needs to be a secret.

Morrigan

31st March 2009, 02:48 PM

As I keep saying, I know it's quite possible, because we keep track of that data.

*facepalm* Why do you keep moving the goalposts?

Nobody said it was impossible to track this data. All we are trying to tell you is that a) it cannot be tracked automatically i.e. without a bit of coding, and b) right now it isn't being tracked.

Whether JREF does is anyone's guess.

We don't need to guess.

And yes, I do consider it sloppy if they don't. A non-profit that doesn't know where its money is coming from? I'd call that sloppy, no matter whether your turnover's $10,000 or $10,000,000.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Just because they don't know something as specific as whether donations come from clicks from the forum or not, does not mean they "don't know where the money is coming from". The JREF has determined that this very specific bit of information is not necessary or interesting to its operations. Since I also have a website that receives occasional donations, I tend to agree. I have a a similar "Support us" link in the site's footer, and if someone clicks it, they'll be taken to an explanation page with a Paypal button, on which they can click to send a Paypal payment. I don't care if the visitor has clicked on the footer link from page A or page B, because it is of no interest to me.

Now, if I were running a commercial, for-profit website with different banner ads and links all leading to money-making operations, I'd want to know which banners transform best, so I'd include a tracker, indeed. But that would be a completely different situation.

You don't have access to the information, and you've already admitted that you don't know anything about the JREF accounting system.

*more facepalm*
Web development is a different beast than accounting. You kept babbling on about how the data was "just sitting there" and argued that it was possible to determine how much of the donations came from the forums based on this so-called data. This has nothing to do with accounting, and everything to do with the technological implementation of the online donations: ergo, web development.

The information or an explanation hasn't been posted.

The information hasn't been posted because it's not available, it doesn't exist. And the explanation as to why it's not available lies in the technical implementation, which you persist in trying to refute despite knowing nothing about it.

Laughable.

Indeed.

theprestige

31st March 2009, 03:16 PM

As I keep saying, I know it's quite possible, because we keep track of that data.
How?

Please provide evidence to support this claim, which is your basis for assuming that JREF can keep track of this data, here in this thread where you ask JREF to provide this data. If you can't support this claim with evidence (e.g., a vendor's website or other documents describing such a tracking system, or your own technical description of your own implementation of such a system), please withdraw it immediately, and admit that you have no basis to assume JREF can keep track of this data.

The Atheist

31st March 2009, 03:20 PM

How?

Refer my previous post.

theprestige

31st March 2009, 03:39 PM

Refer my previous post.
Done and done! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138961)

NobbyNobbs

31st March 2009, 03:52 PM

Terry appears to be a volunteer for the forum, and almost cretainly has no input or ability to retrieve information from the JREF accounting system.

You know this for a fact? Because you said you don't make assumptions, and this kinda sounds like one.

I know - but since the topic is Forum Financial Data and Donations it was completely irrelevant,

The title may be "Forum Financial Data and Donations", but it seems pretty obvious the topic is "is this data available, and if so, how can it be gotten?" Since that's the case, I'd say the manner in which the website tracks the data is extremely relevant.

Originally Posted by Delscottio
From reading this and other threads there seems to be some sort of "problem" between you and the JREF, so I suppose I am asking do you have an ulterior motive for this request? If I have this wrong apologies.

No, that's a fair assumption, so there's no need to apologise.

It is wrong, though.

No ulterior motives? And yet...

Not so much condescension as awareness that breaking Rule 11 can lead to banning, and as a sworn enemy of JREF, I can't have that.

The Atheist

31st March 2009, 03:58 PM

You know this for a fact? Because you said you don't make assumptions, and this kinda sounds like one.

Well, going by the posts so far, it looks correct, and Terry's been in the thread to refute it if he was able to. Along with that, it would be very unusual for an organisation to give accounting access to a volunteer forum technician.

It's not impossible, but I think it's a long way from an assumption.

No ulterior motives? And yet...

I thought that was recognisable as humour, but maybe you haven't seen the relevant thread where there's been more than a little discussion along those lines.

theprestige

31st March 2009, 04:11 PM

Well, going by the posts so far, it looks correct,
Assumption.

and Terry's been in the thread to refute it if he was able to.
Assumption: that Terry cares to refute it.

Along with that, it would be very unusual for an organisation to give accounting access to a volunteer forum technician.
Assumption: That therefore JREF hasn't done it. (Implied)

It's not impossible, but I think it's a long way from an assumption.
Assumption: You assume it's a long way from an assumption.

I thought that was recognisable as humour, but maybe you haven't seen the relevant thread where there's been more than a little discussion along those lines.
Assumption: You assumed it was recognizeable as humor.
Assumption: You assumed Nobby had seen the relevant thread. (Implied)

Based on the forgoing, I'm quite happy to assume that The Atheis(t) assumes that he doesn't make assumptions, but is, in fact, mistaken.

The Atheist

31st March 2009, 04:30 PM

Based on the forgoing, I'm quite happy to assume that The Atheis(t) assumes that he doesn't make assumptions, but is, in fact, mistaken.

No problem, I'll admit to anything as long as the only points which matters aren't lost:

Does the JREF have the information?

Is it going to make it available?

Ocelot

31st March 2009, 04:50 PM

OK Folks, I can't tell you how much the Forum generates through donations but I can give you an idea how much it costs to run.

First we see where it is with a tracert.

20 181 ms 185 ms 185 ms 67.228.115.46-static.reverse.softlayer.com [67.
28.115.46]

Then we go to their site and see what they offer. - Nice range.

http://www.softlayer.com/servers_dedicated_4m_details.html

Narrow it down a bit with a forum search to see what gorgeous hunk of silicon this thing runs on.

Quad Processor Quad Core Intel 7320 - 2.13GHz (Tigerton) - 4 x 4MB cache,
8 GB FB-DIMM Registered 533/667, 74GB SATA Raptor 10k, 73GB SA-SCSI 10K RPM, 1x Terry managment system

Oooh tasty.

Spec it up using the softlayer online configurator

Datacenter
Seattle
Server
Quad Processor Quad Core Intel 7320 - 2.13GHz (Tigerton) - 4 x 4MB cache
$699.00
First Hard Drive
74GB SATA Raptor 10k
$20.00
Second Hard Drive
73GB SA-SCSI 10K RPM
$30.00
Initial Charge
$749.00

... and that's all an ongoing monthly charge. $749.00 per month, This includes 2000 GB bandwidth per month. I figure that's more than enough.

That's the market rate. I don't know if the JREF gets it cheaper or if they've taken some of the extras that raise the cost, but it should give you an idea.

I don't know about anyone else but I feel kinda humbled that someone should shell out so much moolah just so we can call each other names.

theprestige

31st March 2009, 04:52 PM

No problem, I'll admit to anything as long as the only points which matters aren't lost:

Does the JREF have the information?

Is it going to make it available?
The only points which matter to you. In fact, this is another assumption you're making. It's quite clear that other people have different opinions about where this discussion is going, and how much the original topic will be broadened.

Also I find it a little bizarre that after going to such lengths to dismiss other people's arguments as being mere assumptions, and self-righteously proclaiming that you would not stoop to arguing by assumption, you're so quick to sell out that principle in order to pursue... this as your "only points which matters[sic]"?

The Atheist

31st March 2009, 05:46 PM

I don't know about anyone else but I feel kinda humbled that someone should shell out so much moolah just so we can call each other names.

And if it makes a profit?

What if the "woo" ads create a large profit? Would you still be humbled?

The only points which matter to you. In fact, this is another assumption you're making.

Now, there's no assumption involved there, because I started the thread and I know what matters, which is:

The two questions repeatedly repeated.

Also I find it a little bizarre that after going to such lengths to dismiss other people's arguments as being mere assumptions, and self-righteously proclaiming that you would not stoop to arguing by assumption, you're so quick to sell out that principle in order to pursue... this as your "only points which matters[sic]"?

Oh my god, I had a typo!

As to selling out, you can take it any way you like, but the sole point of this thread was to find answers to the questions, so I don't mind what "principles" I have to relieve myself of in the meantime. (especially when they really don't matter anyway)

Still waiting.

NobbyNobbs

31st March 2009, 08:25 PM

And if it makes a profit?

What if the "woo" ads create a large profit? Would you still be humbled?

Is that what this is all about? You wanted to find out if this not-for-profit organization was making a profit? Why didn't you just say so in the first place?

As to your questions, I believe Ocelot has answered them.

The Atheist

31st March 2009, 08:34 PM

Is that what this is all about? You wanted to find out if this not-for-profit organization was making a profit? Why didn't you just say so in the first place?

No, you're confusing my answer with something else. That answer & question were specifically aimed at the statement:

"I feel kinda humbled that someone should shell out so much moolah just so we can call each other names."

If the forum is making a profit, then it isn't "shelling" anything out, and in fact doing the exact opposite, in which case I wondered whether he/she would still be humbled by it.

As to your questions, I believe Ocelot has answered them.

He's given some costing details, but since I didn't ask about costs, it's not relevant at all and doesn't answer either question, which I will repeat yet again:

Does the JREF have the information?

Is it going to make it available?

Morrigan

31st March 2009, 09:41 PM

This has already been answered. The JREF does not have this information. Since the information does not exist, it cannot be available to anyone. The end.

The Atheist

31st March 2009, 10:39 PM

This has already been answered.

False.

The JREF does not have this information. Since the information does not exist, it cannot be available to anyone. The end.

Are you an employee of JREF?

If not, you are unable to give that answer.

recursive prophet

31st March 2009, 11:23 PM

Heh. Hang in there TA. Probably lots like myself rooting for you that don't have time to get caught in this whirlwind. Isn't JREF a non-profit, and required to make this kind of info accessible? Sorry if this has already been covered. I've read most of the thread but it's a lot to remember.

The Atheist

1st April 2009, 12:22 AM

Isn't JREF a non-profit, and required to make this kind of info accessible? Sorry if this has already been covered. I've read most of the thread but it's a lot to remember.

I certainly don't blame you for not reading it all.

No, the information isn't required to be available, although the formal accounts of the JREF must be publicly available. Forum income and expenditure in the filed accounts aren't broken down into components.

KoihimeNakamura

1st April 2009, 12:40 AM

Ah, special pleading fallacy.

The Atheist

1st April 2009, 01:27 AM

Ah, special pleading fallacy.

Oh go on - do tell me how asking a simple question is special pleading?

This is just the most fascinating thread I've ever been involved in.

six7s

1st April 2009, 01:46 AM

The JREF does not have this information. Since the information does not exist, it cannot be available to anyone. The end.Are you an employee of JREF?

If not, you are unable to give that answer.Hi TA,

What makes you think that the information does exist?

The Atheist

1st April 2009, 12:19 PM

Hi TA,

What makes you think that the information does exist?

We know for sure that ad income details exist, because they will be advised by Google.

We know for sure that forum running cost details exist, because there are invoices which show the amounts payable.

We don't know that specific donation information exists relating to forum donors vs JREF donors, but I think it's likely that it does. Someone running an organisation largely on donations would naturally like to know where the income comes from.

Along with that, there's a far simpler method of showing approximate donation income, if the actuals aren't available. Take the usual donation amount - which I would guess is reasonably constant - and subtract the last one with no forum donation button from the first one since its placement.

It won't be precise, but would give an indication.

Alternatively, as I've mentioned a number of times, there were a couple of options open to JREF:

"We don't have that information"

"We don't wish to publish that information"

Instead, they seem to have taken the Mark Todd approach and are saying nothing at all.

Darat

1st April 2009, 01:51 PM

We know for sure that ad income details exist, because they will be advised by Google.

...snip...

Do we?

We don't know that specific donation information exists relating to forum donors vs JREF donors, but I think it's likely that it does.

...snip...

Answered on the first page:

The "Donate to the JREF click here" takes you to the standard JREF donation page. It's not asking for a donation directly for the Forum and there is no way to even mark the donation as "coming from the Forum".

The Atheist

1st April 2009, 04:17 PM

Do we?

Yep (http://www.google.com/intl/en/ads/)

Answered on the first page:

False.

It is possible that the JREF may not know where the data comes from, but that it can be done is no longer in dispute (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138961).

Unless, of course, you are advising, as a JREF employee, that you have access to the financial system and that the information does not exist. If so, please clarify.

theprestige

1st April 2009, 04:22 PM

It is possible that the JREF may not know where the data comes from, but that it can be done [URL="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138961"]is no longer in dispute (http://www.google.com/intl/en/ads/).
Aw, heck, I'll dispute it.

Perhaps there's a difference between "the system as currently implemented does not support such a tracking option" and "the system could be modified by a skilled professional to support such a tracking option".

Thus, both Darat and The Atheist could be correct: Such a thing could be done, but the current system doesn't do it, and those that administer the current system are not qualified to make the changes necessary to do it.

I wonder if TA would be willing to accept this interpretation, in the interests of advancing the discussion.

I further wonder if Darat or some other Forum admin type would be willing to stipulate that this is what they meant, in the same interests.

The Atheist

1st April 2009, 04:32 PM

I wonder if TA would be willing to accept this interpretation, in the interests of advancing the discussion.

I've said several times that an official comment that the data isn't held would satisfy that part of the question.

So far, all we have is speculation.

theprestige

1st April 2009, 04:56 PM

I've said several times that an official comment that the data isn't held would satisfy that part of the question.

So far, all we have is speculation.
And Darat's explanation above doesn't count? It seems like it not only meets, but exceeds your criteria: The data isn't held, and cannot be held.

What's not to like?

The Atheist

1st April 2009, 05:08 PM

And Darat's explanation above doesn't count? It seems like it not only meets, but exceeds your criteria: The data isn't held, and cannot be held.

What's not to like?

I'm pretty sure that Darat, as a volunteer forum administrator, would not have access to JREF's accounting systems, ergo, he is speculating.

I'm waiting for him to confirm or refute that.

Cleon

1st April 2009, 07:08 PM

I'm pretty sure that Darat, as a volunteer forum administrator, would not have access to JREF's accounting systems, ergo, he is speculating.

I'm waiting for him to confirm or refute that.

One more time:

YOU DON'T NEED ACCESS TO THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM TO KNOW THIS.

I simply cannot fathom why you refuse to accept this.

The Atheist

1st April 2009, 07:17 PM

One more time:

Ah, the school of "write it in large letters to make it come true".

Seems to work well for psychics, telepaths and others, so I'm not surprised you'd try it.

I've always found that asking the person in charge of the accounting function is the best way of getting financial information. As opposed to a volunteer forum worker who lives in another country entirely.

But you keep that shouting going!

Cleon

1st April 2009, 07:25 PM

Ah, the school of "write it in large letters to make it come true".

Seems to work well for psychics, telepaths and others, so I'm not surprised you'd try it.

I've always found that asking the person in charge of the accounting function is the best way of getting financial information. As opposed to a volunteer forum worker who lives in another country entirely.

But you keep that shouting going!

So you're not accepting it because you don't want to accept it. I'm sure that's working well for you.

Czarcasm

1st April 2009, 07:26 PM

I'm pretty sure that Darat, as a volunteer forum administrator, would not have access to JREF's accounting systems, ergo, he is speculating.
I think I would find Darat's speculations to be somewhat more believable than yours.

The Atheist

1st April 2009, 07:31 PM

I think I would find Darat's speculations to be somewhat more believable than yours.

Except Darat didn't speculate - he was quite clear, it's Cleon and others who have indulged in speculation.

So you're not accepting it because you don't want to accept it. I'm sure that's working well for you.

Shall we just check what Darat posted in this very thread then?

I suggest you try contacting the JREF directly for such information - no one on the Mod team has access to that type of information.(bolding mine)

Cleon

1st April 2009, 07:54 PM

Except Darat didn't speculate - he was quite clear, it's Cleon and others who have indulged in speculation.

Giving you facts you don't want to hear is not the same as "speculation."

Shall we just check what Darat posted in this very thread then?

(bolding mine)

Since that does nothing to refute anything I have said, it's completely irrelevant.

At the end of the day, though, all your bullster and lame attempts at condescension won't matter one bit. You're not going to get the information you want, and the only person who's going to wonder why is you.

The Atheist

1st April 2009, 08:36 PM

Since that does nothing to refute anything I have said, it's completely irrelevant.

False.

You claimed the information doesn't exist, Darat stated that he doesn't know.

The two are quite incompatible, but again, no surprise you'd choose to ignore that obvious fact.

At the end of the day,...

The sun goes down. Nice use of hopelessly out-of-date cliche!

though, all your bullster and lame attempts at condescension won't matter one bit.

That's true, especially if you're the one discussing it, since you have no facts and no authority.

You're not going to get the information you want, and the only person who's going to wonder why is you.

No, I don't wonder at all, but the sad news for JREF is that quite a few other people are indeed wondering why a simple request has used up four pages without reply.

NobbyNobbs

1st April 2009, 09:32 PM

We don't know that specific donation information exists relating to forum donors vs JREF donors, but I think it's likely that it does. Someone running an organisation largely on donations would naturally like to know where the income comes from.

Assumption.

Along with that, there's a far simpler method of showing approximate donation income, if the actuals aren't available. Take the usual donation amount - which I would guess is reasonably constant - and subtract the last one with no forum donation button from the first one since its placement.

It won't be precise, but would give an indication.

Speculation.

I'm pretty sure that Darat, as a volunteer forum administrator, would not have access to JREF's accounting systems, ergo, he is speculating.

Speculation about someone speculating. Pretty cool.

The Atheist

1st April 2009, 09:48 PM

Assumption.

Yes, I did say that "it's likely" which was a pretty good guide that I don't know.

Speculation.

No, there's no speculation involved at all. It's pretty simple to deduct one number from another.

Speculation about someone speculating. Pretty cool.

Hardly. Refer to Darat's quote 7 posts back. He was quite unequivocal.

Cleon

1st April 2009, 10:19 PM

Sorry, but that's exactly what you claimed. I stated that you had no authority and you said that my statement was false - that means that you do have authority, although I'm pleased to see you've given that lie up at the moment.

Sorry, but no. You didn't say "authority to speak on behalf of JREF." You said "authority." And I do have authority.

My authority is my professional expertise in web site development. Authority you completely lack, but tried to bullster your way over that inconvenient point.

(Oh, is that not what you meant by "authority?" Should've been more specific.)

I can tell you beyond any doubt whatsoever that the web site does not collect the information you seek. Is it possible to collect that information? Yes. Is the site doing it now? No. No, it is not.

That is not "speculation." That is cold, hard, fact.

No, I don't need access to JREF's accounting system to know that; I know you refuse to accept that, but it remains true regardless. I can tell you that simply from looking at the information that's sent to PayPal when you click the "donate" button--information that does not include anything about whether the user came from the forum or not. If PayPal doesn't know the user came from the forum, then when it sends the "transaction completed" information back to the JREF site, there is no way for the JREF site to know it came from the forum.

That's reality. Those are the facts. You can accept them or not. If you do, bully for you for (finally) admitting you don't know what you're talking about. If you don't, good luck with your new religion.

The really pathetic thing is, if you knew half as much about this as you like to think you do, you would already know this.

Good plan, quit while you're behind.Trying to manufacture reality yet again, I see.

NobbyNobbs

1st April 2009, 11:22 PM

Yes, I did say that "it's likely" which was a pretty good guide that I don't know.

I'm just saying, you shouldn't complain about other people making assumptions if you're going to do it yourself.

No, there's no speculation involved at all. It's pretty simple to deduct one number from another.

Take a look again. I've bolded the part where you are speculating, to make it easier to pick out:
Take the usual donation amount - which I would guess is reasonably constant - and subtract the last one with no forum donation button from the first one since its placement.

Hardly. Refer to Darat's quote 7 posts back. He was quite unequivocal.

Once again, I will point out exactly what I'm talking about.

You said
I'm pretty sure that Darat, as a volunteer forum administrator, would not have access to JREF's accounting systems, ergo, he is speculating.

I said,
Speculation about someone speculating. Pretty cool.
which you seem to disagree with, by claiming he was unequivocal. Yet you are the one who said he was speculating! To wit:

"I'm pretty sure that..."
Speculating...

"...ergo, he is speculating."
..about someone speculating.

I repeat: Pretty cool.

NobbyNobbs

1st April 2009, 11:26 PM

Sorry, but no. You didn't say "authority to speak on behalf of JREF." You said "authority." And I do have authority.

My authority is my professional expertise in web site development. Authority you completely lack, but tried to bullster your way over that inconvenient point.

(Oh, is that not what you meant by "authority?" Should've been more specific.)

I can tell you beyond any doubt whatsoever that the web site does not collect the information you seek. Is it possible to collect that information? Yes. Is the site doing it now? No. No, it is not.

That is not "speculation." That is cold, hard, fact.

No, I don't need access to JREF's accounting system to know that; I know you refuse to accept that, but it remains true regardless. I can tell you that simply from looking at the information that's sent to PayPal when you click the "donate" button--information that does not include anything about whether the user came from the forum or not. If PayPal doesn't know the user came from the forum, then when it sends the "transaction completed" information back to the JREF site, there is no way for the JREF site to know it came from the forum.

That's reality. Those are the facts. You can accept them or not. If you do, bully for you for (finally) admitting you don't know what you're talking about. If you don't, good luck with your new religion.

The really pathetic thing is, if you knew half as much about this as you like to think you do, you would already know this.

Trying to manufacture reality yet again, I see.

As I understand it, it doesn't matter whether it's dollars, rubles, euros, or even llamas. It has nothing to do with finance at all, and everything to do with the way data flows. Correct?

I know nothing about finance, and even less about the web, and yet even I understand this concept. Atheist, what is there about Cleon's explanation or expertise that you don't agree with? Why do you insist on hearing it from an "official" JREF representative?

Darat

2nd April 2009, 01:13 AM

Yep (http://www.google.com/intl/en/ads/)

Perhaps you'd like to check your facts again?

False.

It is possible that the JREF may not know where the data comes from, but that it can be done is no longer in dispute (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138961).

...snip...

Unless you are now saying that your request was for future information you are trying to conflate two different things.

Unless, of course, you are advising, as a JREF employee, that you have access to the financial system and that the information does not exist. If so, please clarify.

I need no access to the JREF's financial information or systems, all I need is the access to the server that I have had since about 2004. I know exactly exactly how the "Donate to the JREF click here" button and the page it links to works.

The specific information you requested, which was about past donations, simply does not exist.

Darat

2nd April 2009, 01:24 AM

...snip...

Shall we just check what Darat posted in this very thread then?

(bolding mine)

Again you are trying to conflate two different things. That response was to your original general enquiry about financial information:

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

And as I said you will need to contact the JREF to get that information.

When the discussion moved to be about more specific information, I posted this:

...snip..

See the "Donate to JREF" button at the top of every page? Do the mods not get that coming up?

...snip...

The "Donate to the JREF click here" takes you to the standard JREF donation page. It's not asking for a donation directly for the Forum and there is no way to even mark the donation as "coming from the Forum".

And that statement was and is 100% correct. That is not speculation since I know exactly how the donate button and the page it links to has worked since it was created. (For full disclosure I've not checked since I made that statement so it may have been changed since then.)

The Atheist

2nd April 2009, 02:37 AM

And that statement was and is 100% correct. That is not speculation since I know exactly how the donate button and the page it links to has worked since it was created. (For full disclosure I've not checked since I made that statement so it may have been changed since then.)

Ok, now that you've clarified it, I'll accept it as I doubt it's been changed in the past few days.

I have to repeat that I'm somewhat surprised that an organisation reliant on donor income doesn't track where donations come from.

We'll just wait in vain for the rest of the information.

Morrigan

2nd April 2009, 10:09 AM

My authority is my professional expertise in web site development.

Allow me once again to chip in as another person with such professional expertise, and to completely second your entire post.

I can tell you beyond any doubt whatsoever that the web site does not collect the information you seek. Is it possible to collect that information? Yes. Is the site doing it now? No. No, it is not.

That is not "speculation." That is cold, hard, fact.

Yep.

No, I don't need access to JREF's accounting system to know that;

Indeed, which is something The Atheist refuses to acknowledge for some mysterious reason.

As I understand it, it doesn't matter whether it's dollars, rubles, euros, or even llamas. It has nothing to do with finance at all, and everything to do with the way data flows. Correct?

Yes.

I know nothing about finance, and even less about the web, and yet even I understand this concept. Atheist, what is there about Cleon's explanation or expertise that you don't agree with? Why do you insist on hearing it from an "official" JREF representative?
I have my own theory: perhaps he's trying to role-play Claus?

chillzero

2nd April 2009, 10:46 AM

I have moved a load of off topic posts, and a lot of bickering out of the thread. Stop making the thread about each other, and stick to the topic. Keep it civil, and keep it on topic, or next time I'll be back with yellow cards, or other moderation actions.

The topic - JREF forum financial data.

Luke T.

2nd April 2009, 02:26 PM

Here is some forum financial data provided by Jeff Wagg in another topic:

Since I've been here, the JREF has spent far more on server costs than the forum has ever brought in.

A couple of years ago, we raised $10,000 from generous forum members to move to a new server. And we DID that.. and we spent MORE than $10,000 to do so. Now, we're on a completely different and newer server, that's running gangbusters, and we didnt' ask for ANY money from the forum community.

The Atheist

2nd April 2009, 03:00 PM

Here is some forum financial data provided by Jeff Wagg in another topic:

Yes, I saw that.

It's not very helpful, however, since it covers a historical time when the forum didn't have ads.

Saying that it used to cost more than it brought in is all very well, but it maybe raises the question as to how much money is being brought in now. Going by the amounts claimed by the christian forum, I'd be surprised if the ad revenue wasn't pretty spectacular.

theprestige

2nd April 2009, 03:06 PM

I'm pretty sure that Darat, as a volunteer forum administrator, would not have access to JREF's accounting systems, ergo, he is speculating.
That's funny. As someone who administers forums professionally for a living, including several forums using the same software the JREF uses, I'm pretty sure that...

... As a forum administrator, it's extremely likely that Darat would know quite a bit about the underlying OS, and the scripts and other connectors that link the forum to, say, a financial tracking system.

I don't need access to my employer's accounting systems, to know whether or not the forums I support connect to them, and what kinds of information gets passed to them from those forums.

All you're doing here is assuming and speculating, which apparently are cardinal sins when they result in conclusions different from yours, but are the height of rational inquiry when they support your opinions.

six7s

2nd April 2009, 03:13 PM

As you can see, I don't post a lot, but

After reading this thread and The Atheist's contribution, as a New Zealander, can I just take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of the entire population of this country, for giving him access to the internet.No, you can't... simply because I, for one, don't share the sentiment

Sure, there have been (and will, probably, continue to be) times when I wish that TA would STFU - and on occasion I say so

However, I can sincerely say that I feel that TA's net worth is in the black

remirol

2nd April 2009, 03:14 PM

Going by the amounts claimed by the christian forum,

:dl:

And you believed them? :oldroll:

The Atheist

2nd April 2009, 03:21 PM

:dl:

And you believed them? :oldroll:

Sure I did.

Should I not have? They are subject to exactly the same NPO disclosure as JREF, so if the christian organisation's data is not believable, neither is JREF's.

theprestige

2nd April 2009, 03:36 PM

The Atheist, earlier in this thread you indicated that your assumptions about what is and is not appropriate reporting practice for an organization like JREF are based partly on your own direct experience with similar situations.

When asked for details about your own experience, you insisted that while you were happy to discuss those detaiils, they were off-topic for this thread, and that a separate thread should be opened in the appropriate (Computers) subforum for such a discussion.

Now, I strongly disagree that such a discussion is off-topic for this thread. You made an appeal to your own authority, as support for claims you made in this thread, directly related to the topic of this thread. Therefore it seems to me that any investigation of your authority, as it relates to claims you made in this thread, is supremely relevant to the topic of this thread.

It seems to me that you should, in this thread, thoroughly justify your appeal to authority, or withdraw the claims based on that authority.

However, rather than debate that point, I chose to create a new thread for that discussion, in the subforum you mentioned, in good faith that you were, as you claimed, "happy to discuss" your own experience.

Now it seems that while you're quite active in that thread, you're using it exclusively to continue the discussion you started in this thread.

Of course this makes you seem like a liar and a cheat. It calls into question your claim of authority in these matters. It undermines your appearance of honest, rational inquiry. And, of course, it's extremely rude to derail a thread on a specific topic, that you explicitly requested so that you could discuss that topic.

Please demonstrate your expertise in e-commerce tracking and reporting methods; Or admit that you are in fact ignorant of such methods, and are in no way an authority on what is and isn't appropriate for JREF to implement.

Morrigan

2nd April 2009, 06:46 PM

Don't even try to teach babies calculus.

The Atheist

2nd April 2009, 07:34 PM

Now, I strongly disagree that such a discussion is off-topic for this thread.

I take it you're unaware of a wee "off-topic" problem (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139141)from this very thread.

Also, note that I have no input whatsoever on the rules, and as I've had one warning through being ignorant of a mod box earlier in the day - again in this thread - I am sticking 100% to the topic in hand, which is stated at the top of page 1.

If you can get a moderator to ok the direction of your post, get back to me.

NobbyNobbs

2nd April 2009, 10:27 PM

Ok, now that you've clarified it, I'll accept it as I doubt it's been changed in the past few days.

I have to repeat that I'm somewhat surprised that an organisation reliant on donor income doesn't track where donations come from.

We'll just wait in vain for the rest of the information.

What "rest of the information"? Darat has told you it isn't available, you've understood why and accepted the explanation.

What more is there to wait for?

six7s

2nd April 2009, 10:30 PM

What more is there to wait for?Suspension?

rjh01

2nd April 2009, 10:45 PM

Either that or he wants the mods to close the thread. I will be surprised if any more relevant information comes out of this thread. That includes on topic questions not yet asked.

The Atheist

3rd April 2009, 09:59 AM

What "rest of the information"?

Does the forum's only income consist of donations?

remirol

3rd April 2009, 10:01 AM

Does the forum's only income consist of donations?

Are you literate?

The forum has no income. The JREF has income.

theprestige

3rd April 2009, 11:11 AM

I take it you're unaware of a wee "off-topic" problem (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139141)from this very thread.

Also, note that I have no input whatsoever on the rules, and as I've had one warning through being ignorant of a mod box earlier in the day - again in this thread - I am sticking 100% to the topic in hand, which is stated at the top of page 1.

If you can get a moderator to ok the direction of your post, get back to me.
Unecessary. There's also a thread dedicated to this very question, which I created at your request in the Computers subforum. If you're uncomfortable answering it here, you're welcome to answer it over there instead. After all, this is a topic you said you'd be "happy to discuss".

The Atheist

3rd April 2009, 11:13 AM

Are you literate?

Given the warning on bickering, I'll treat that question literally and just answer no while I set a wee conundrum for you:

Google Adsense pays per impression of the ad showing.

Those impressions created by forum pages will be advised and credited to JREF as the forum owner, but if you'd like to dispute that the money coming in from that source isn't completely separate from the ads on randi.org, and solely the income of the forum, then please do go ahead.

No forum = no income from forum ads.

How simple is that?

The forum has no income. The JREF has income.

You might just want to try that one again.

remirol

3rd April 2009, 11:28 AM

Those impressions created by forum pages will be advised and credited to JREF as the forum owner, but if you'd like to dispute that the money coming in from that source isn't completely separate from the ads on randi.org, and solely the income of the forum, then please do go ahead.

Again, are you literate? In this case, you don't appear to have read what you wrote; I've bolded it for you.

Now, again:

The forum has no income.
The JREF has income.
The forum costs are classed as an expenditure by the JREF.

Regarding "completely separate", I refer you to the prior discussions in this thread and others about whether or not such detailed information is tracked at all (especially given that the forum's URL is "forums.randi.org"). I am not going to waste time repeating any of it.

But claiming that such is forum's "income" is absolutely incorrect; it's a deliberate attempt to misstate facts to support a meaningless complaint.

Mr Clingford

3rd April 2009, 11:36 AM

:dl:

And you believed them? :oldroll:You embarrass yourself with this kind of knee-jerk comment.

remirol

3rd April 2009, 11:40 AM

You embarrass yourself with this kind of knee-jerk comment.

Oh, not a chance. With the amount of Lying for Jesus(tm) that takes place on a regular basis from so many of these groups, I have much less reason to trust a religious organization than I do others.

As I commented yesterday (but it appears to have been swept up in the bickering), I find it absolutely hilarious that TA is not over there chirping at said Christian Forum for the gruesome details of where every penny of _their_ stuff goes, but is instead willing to take their word for it... but here, he's even willing to insist that information which he's told isn't tracked _must_ exist. :oldroll:

It's all about agenda, I guess. :popcorn1

The Atheist

3rd April 2009, 11:41 AM

The forum has no income.

So, after I completely destroyed your naive comment, you're going to stick the above position?

No problem - we have nothing further to discuss.

remirol

3rd April 2009, 11:44 AM

So, after I completely destroyed your naive comment, you're going to stick the above position?

You mean the bit where I demonstrated that you were intentionally misrepresenting the situation to create artificial drama? :oldroll:

Yeah, I'd back out if I were you, too, at this point.

Mr Clingford

3rd April 2009, 11:44 AM

Oh, not a chance. With the amount of Lying for Jesus(tm) that takes place on a regular basis from so many of these groups, I have much less reason to trust a religious organization than I do others.

As I commented yesterday (but it appears to have been swept up in the bickering), I find it absolutely hilarious that TA is not over there chirping at said Christian Forum for the gruesome details of where every penny of _their_ stuff goes, but is instead willing to take their word for it... but here, he's even willing to insist that information which he's told isn't tracked _must_ exist. :oldroll:

It's all about agenda, I guess. :popcorn1Ok, thanks for the response. I happen to know the forum TA is on about and he doesn't need to ask for the details because they are out in the open so he doesn't need to take their word for it. It is the type of forum that would be called unChristian by the type of websites that indeed are Lying for Jesus. This website happens to be the exception.

remirol

3rd April 2009, 11:48 AM

Ok, thanks for the response. I happen to know the forum TA is on about and he doesn't need to ask for the details because they are out in the open so he doesn't need to take their word for it. It is the type of forum that would be called unChristian by the type of websites that indeed are Lying for Jesus. This website happens to be the exception.

We know what a Form 990 is. The JREF publishes one too.

Are you referring to something else? If so, what?

The Atheist

3rd April 2009, 11:49 AM

As I commented yesterday (but it appears to have been swept up in the bickering), I find it absolutely hilarious that TA is not over there chirping at said Christian Forum for the gruesome details of where every penny of _their_ stuff goes, but is instead willing to take their word for it... but here, he's even willing to insist that information which he's told isn't tracked _must_ exist. :oldroll:

It's all about agenda, I guess. :popcorn1

Ah, you mean how christian agendas suggest that honesty and openness are good and skeptic agendas demand that the heroic leaders be trusted in all areas.

Quite right, I apologise for my stupidity.

The Atheist

3rd April 2009, 11:56 AM

You mean the bit where I demonstrated that you were intentionally misrepresenting the situation to create artificial drama? :oldroll:

Yeah, I'd back out if I were you, too, at this point.

Absolutely - you've won so comprehensively that I'm delighted to leave you to it. You're just posting so quickly that every time I've made a comment you've made two.

I'm perfectly happy to let the thread stand as it is. I'll just bump it every now and then for those few poor deluded fools who don't roll over on command and who believe that some organisations should display a higher standard of ethics than others.

remirol

3rd April 2009, 11:58 AM

Absolutely - you've won so comprehensively that I'm delighted to leave you to it. You're just posting so quickly that every time I've made a comment you've made two.

Well, I'm responding to both you _and_ Mr Clingford. Math works out to me...

I'm perfectly happy to let the thread stand as it is. I'll just bump it every now and then for those few poor deluded fools who don't roll over on command and who believe that some organisations should display a higher standard of ethics than others.By the way, I believe that "theprestige" has a thread you may be interested in visiting.

ETA: Ah, excellent. I see you have.

Mr Clingford

3rd April 2009, 12:00 PM

We know what a Form 990 is. The JREF publishes one too.

Are you referring to something else? If so, what?Just that the income and expenditure were published for all to see.

remirol

3rd April 2009, 12:01 PM

Just that the income and expenditure were published for all to see.

Yes, as the JREF also does. Again, are you referring to something other than a 990?

If so, then what?

theprestige

3rd April 2009, 12:04 PM

... some organisations should display a higher standard of ethics than others.
See. this is the part that still confuses me, even after going back and re-reading the entire thread. As far as I can tell, TA isn't even really making a complaint; he's just going to great lengths to make it appear as if he's making a complaint.

No, seriously. What's the complaint?

What, exactly, is the ethical standard that TA has in mind here; and what, exactly, would constitute compliance with that standard?

The Atheist

3rd April 2009, 12:04 PM

Sorry, Mr. C, I will nip back in and get this one:

Yes, as the JREF also does. Again, are you referring to something other than a 990?

If so, then what?

Again, this is quite simple:

The JREF files a 990, but as you quite rightly state:

The forum has no income.

In the case of the christian forum, they have published the forum financial data.

The Atheist

3rd April 2009, 12:08 PM

What, exactly, is the ethical standard that TA has in mind here; and what, exactly, would constitute compliance with that standard?

Nah, you can just ignore that.

Since remirol's educated me, the question is pointless:

The forum has no income.

remirol

3rd April 2009, 12:13 PM

The JREF files a 990, but as you quite rightly state:

In the case of the christian forum, they have published the forum financial data.

So they've done up a spreadsheet and stuck it on the web, and Mr Clingford expects me to treat that with the same trust as I do a 990?

I think not.

Mr Clingford

3rd April 2009, 12:46 PM

six7s

3rd April 2009, 12:51 PM

Are you literate?I am... at least sorta...

However, despite reading all of this and other 'associated' threads, I have no eyed deer what all the fuss is about... and I have a hunch its cos the main protagonists are being far too cryptic - for me at least

The forum has no income. The JREF has income.OK... this is an easy concept to grasp... hell, I ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer and I get it

However... WTF?

With advertising, the forum generates income and, unless there's a miracle at work - incurs expenses

@TA
Reading these threads I am becoming increasingly confuzzled
I have a couple of sincere questions that might help turn the tide

What info do you want/expect to be publicly displayed?

Why?

TYIA :)

theprestige

3rd April 2009, 12:52 PM

Nah, you can just ignore that.

Since remirol's educated me, the question is pointless:
As I said, you don't actually have a complaint at all, do you?

remirol

3rd April 2009, 12:58 PM

OK. The board owners talk frequently on the site and in a recent thread it has come out that they are in need of money to keep it going - they are English and so find it difficult to mention this fact.

Which would indicate (presuming the board owners are telling the truth, of course) that whatever ad revenue forum pageviews generate is either being used for other purposes than maintaining the forum (not uncommon), or is not enough to offset the expenditures required to keep the forum going (also not uncommon, ad revenue is low).

However, I note that it doesn't appear to include what TA implied, which is a _full_ disclosure of the state of finances; it just is a rough estimate, ie. "We ain't makin' what we need to."

theprestige

3rd April 2009, 01:07 PM

I have no eyed deer what all the fuss is about...
There is no fuss, just TA not actually fussing about anything, and the rest of us having an interesting conversation.

NobbyNobbs

3rd April 2009, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by remirol
Are you literate?

Given the warning on bickering, I'll treat that question literally and just answer no .

:dl: :dl: :dl:

I'm amazed no one else caught this. I can't stop laughing. Is TA suggesting a JREF conspiracy? If so, can I nominate this for a Stundie?

The Atheist

3rd April 2009, 01:45 PM

With advertising, the forum generates income and, unless there's a miracle at work - incurs expenses

No, the forum has no income - we've agreed on that, so there are only expenses.

@TA
Reading these threads I am becoming increasingly confuzzled
I have a couple of sincere questions that might help turn the tide

What info do you want/expect to be publicly displayed?

I had asked for the forum income details, but since there is no income, I clearly asked a very silly question.

Had there been income, I would have been interested in knowing what it was, especially from advertising.

Why?

TYIA :)

It all started when I was researching some advertising costs and the christian forum just happened to post its earnings in public at the same time. I have been in e mail correspondence with them as they have answered a range of questions I put to them and wondered if the JREF would be as open as they were.

The answer to that is a resounding "No".

The Atheist

3rd April 2009, 01:47 PM

I'm amazed no one else caught this. I can't stop laughing. Is TA suggesting a JREF conspiracy? If so, can I nominate this for a Stundie?

You can easily check my posts to see if I have collected a warning for off-topic posting (I have), so your idea makes no sense at all. If trying not to be suspended after a warning is suggestive of a conspiracy theory, then I'll plead guilty to that as well.

Mr Clingford

3rd April 2009, 01:50 PM

Which would indicate (presuming the board owners are telling the truth, of course) that whatever ad revenue forum pageviews generate is either being used for other purposes than maintaining the forum (not uncommon), or is not enough to offset the expenditures required to keep the forum going (also not uncommon, ad revenue is low).

However, I note that it doesn't appear to include what TA implied, which is a _full_ disclosure of the state of finances; it just is a rough estimate, ie. "We ain't makin' what we need to."
Well, they did produce a pdf, which mentions money spent on accountancy, but I suppose they could have made up that as well. Seriously, I think there is at least one Xtian website which isn't on the make. I know. Get out of town. It's not possible.

remirol

3rd April 2009, 01:57 PM

Well, they did produce a pdf, which mentions money spent on accountancy, but I suppose they could have made up that as well. Seriously, I think there is at least one Xtian website which isn't on the make. I know. Get out of town. It's not possible.

They could indeed have, yes. Hence the word "presuming", which carries certain connotations as well as its literal meaning.

That said, I find it interesting that you didn't simply respond to my earlier request:

Are you referring to something else? If so, what?

with either a link to the PDF or a statement that it existed, along with precisely what line-items it contains that might be relevant to this discussion.

However, it looks like TA has finally admitted that he doesn't have a complaint after all, so there isn't much point in chasing down the gruesome details any further -- there are no questions left to be answered that I see.

Mr Clingford

3rd April 2009, 02:05 PM

The reason I didn't provide a link is that I didn't know where it was. I had to ask on the forum and until someone provided a link to the pdf I had only my and TA's memory to go - a frightening proposition!

theprestige

3rd April 2009, 02:10 PM

It all started when I was researching some advertising costs and the christian forum just happened to post its earnings in public at the same time. I have been in e mail correspondence with them as they have answered a range of questions I put to them and wondered if the JREF would be as open as they were.

The answer to that is a resounding "No".
Okay, so I have some questions:

1. In what subforum would you like me to start a thread, where you can substantiate your claim about some other forum's openness?

2. If such a thread were started, would you post to it with substantiation of your claim, or simply use it to continue the current discussion of your non-issue?

3. Is there a specific minimum standard of openness that you would prefer to see from web-based forums?

4. If so, do you think the JREF forums meet this standard, or not?

NobbyNobbs

3rd April 2009, 04:15 PM

You can easily check my posts to see if I have collected a warning for off-topic posting (I have), so your idea makes no sense at all. If trying not to be suspended after a warning is suggestive of a conspiracy theory, then I'll plead guilty to that as well.

You miss my point completely. First of all, off-topic posting has nothing at all to do with what I was saying.

You were asked if you were literate. You answered "no". I found this funny, because

lit-er-ate n. 1. One who can read and write. 2. A well-informed, educated person.

The reason I asked about conspiracies is because Stundies can only be nominated if they are connected to a conspiracy. I asked if your implication that JREF is hiding its financial information is considered a conspiracy. Never mind, though. It's not worth it.

Sigh. I can't believe I had to explain that.

six7s

3rd April 2009, 05:40 PM

Sigh. I can't believe I had to explain that.want != need != must

;)

The Atheist

4th April 2009, 01:24 PM

Okay, so I have some questions:

1. In what subforum would you like me to start a thread, where you can substantiate your claim about some other forum's openness?

Don't ask me, I'm not a moderator - so take your pick and send me a link.

2. If such a thread were started, would you post to it with substantiation of your claim, or simply use it to continue the current discussion of your non-issue?

I'll certainly post to it. As you can see, there's nothing further to discuss here and apart from bumping this thread every month or so, I doubt I'll post much more to it.

3. Is there a specific minimum standard of openness that you would prefer to see from web-based forums?

No.

4. If so, do you think the JREF forums meet this standard, or not?[/QUOTE]

Doesn't apply.

You miss my point completely.

Nope. It just wasn't a point or relevant.

The reason I asked about conspiracies is because Stundies can only be nominated if they are connected to a conspiracy. I asked if your implication that JREF is hiding its financial information is considered a conspiracy.

Aside from it being a fairly stupid question, I did answer it and haven't made any implication that a conspiracy exists, so it's something completely within your own mind.

If you want to go down that path, it will be a lonely walk.

theprestige

6th April 2009, 11:09 AM

Aside from it being a fairly stupid question, I did answer it and haven't made any implication that a conspiracy exists, so it's something completely within your own mind.

If you want to go down that path, it will be a lonely walk.
Please re-check your attribution; I never raised the question of conspiracy.

The Atheist

6th April 2009, 11:26 AM

Please re-check your attribution; I never raised the question of conspiracy.

Quite right - my apologies. Bad quote, it was Nooby, not you.

Luke T.

6th April 2009, 01:09 PM

Jeff Wagg said (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4578822#post4578822):

A couple of years ago, we raised $10,000 from generous forum members to move to a new server. And we DID that.. and we spent MORE than $10,000 to do so. Now, we're on a completely different and newer server, that's running gangbusters, and we didnt' ask for ANY money from the forum community.

So on the one hand they tell us they don't keep track of money raised from the forum, and yet here we have an obvious contradiction. They know exactly how much they raised from forum members, and how much they spent on the forum.

Hmmmm.

chillzero

6th April 2009, 01:14 PM

Jeff Wagg said (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4578822#post4578822):

So on the one hand they tell us they don't keep track of money raised from the forum, and yet here we have an obvious contradiction. They know exactly how much they raised, and how much they spent on the forum.

Hmmmm.

hmmmm.... indeed ....
I wonder how on earth they calculated how much they raised from the forum, from a campaign where a specific target amount was requested only from forum members, and the income from members who responded was gathered in a specific manner.

:rolleyes:

remirol

6th April 2009, 01:17 PM

hmmmm.... indeed ....
I wonder how on earth they calculated how much they raised from the forum, from a campaign where a specific target amount was requested only from forum members, and the income from members who responded was gathered in a specific manner.

:rolleyes:

Not to mention the intellectually dishonest conflation of tenses here, where he compares specific unusual events from several years ago with current practice.

Luke T.

6th April 2009, 01:19 PM

hmmmm.... indeed ....
I wonder how on earth they calculated how much they raised from the forum, from a campaign where a specific target amount was requested only from forum members, and the income from members who responded was gathered in a specific manner.

:rolleyes:

You ever get the feeling you're being watched?

Anyway, you are describing the very process I invented here, chillzero. We knew exactly to the penny how much money was raised for the telethon I started.

So there is forum financial information available. It just isn't complete.

Luke T.

6th April 2009, 01:21 PM

Not to mention the intellectually dishonest conflation of tenses here, where he compares specific unusual events from several years ago with current practice.

I'll wager you the practice is nearly identical today as it was when I first did it. If it isn't, it is less efficient than my method was. Like I said a moment ago, we knew to the penny how much was raised from the fundraising effort.

I verified six ways to Sunday what money was coming in, and from where, and from who, and for what. I was on the phone with Linda during the entire period several times a day.

remirol

6th April 2009, 01:25 PM

I'll wager you the practice is nearly identical today as it was when I first did it.

Have you read the rest of the threads on this subject at all?

If it isn't, it is less efficient than my method was. Like I said a moment ago, we knew to the penny how much was raised from the fundraising effort.

I verified six ways to Sunday what money was coming in, and from where, and from who, and for what.

Again, you did this for a specific unusual event -- donations being solicited specifically for the forum upgrade, at a specific point in time.

This is not, however, the subject under discussion, as anyone reading this and prior threads would know; the subject has been both the "paypal" donation button on the forums (not tracked as specifically coming from the forums, per other technical information given), and JREF ad revenue from randi.org (also not tracked).

Luke T.

6th April 2009, 01:27 PM

The simple truth is that any money raised by way of the forum goes into the same big pot that money raised from any other source goes in. I'm sure if the JREF was audited, they would have financial information available down to the penny for "donations" but any description of whether that donation came in by way of the forum or by way of a walk-in off the street would probably not be available.

They probably have more accurate data about money raised by way of TAMs.

But if you were to ask Randi how much the forum makes or loses for him, he'd probably not be able to tell you.

They could if they wanted to. They just don't want to.

Luke T.

6th April 2009, 01:28 PM

Have you read the rest of the threads on this subject at all?

Again, you did this for a specific unusual event -- donations being solicited specifically for the forum upgrade, at a specific point in time.

This is not, however, the subject under discussion, as anyone reading this and prior threads would know; the subject has been both the "paypal" donation button on the forums (not tracked as specifically coming from the forums, per other technical information given), and JREF ad revenue from randi.org (also not tracked).

The subject is the "forum's financial performance". To which TA was referred to "JREF's finances".

Luke T.

6th April 2009, 01:30 PM

It is obvious the root question is whether or not the forum is a moneymaker or loser for JREF.

Luke T.

6th April 2009, 01:34 PM

Even if it is a moneymaker, the forum is a negligible one for JREF. When we did the first big telethon, JREF had a monthly expense of $10,000. So our $4800 (I think it was around that much) didn't even keep JREF running for two weeks.

Even a $10,000 fundraiser only keeps JREF running for a month, maybe less these days.

So if you consider these fundraisers are rare events and raise only enough to run JREF for a few weeks, then it isn't hard to figure out the entire forum's financial impact on JREF on a day to day basis is near zero.

So if you stop paying your dues, no tears are going to be lost.

Luke T.

6th April 2009, 01:35 PM

So I hope that answers all your forum financial performance questions for this month.

remirol

6th April 2009, 01:40 PM

The simple truth is that any money raised by way of the forum goes into the same big pot that money raised from any other source goes in. I'm sure if the JREF was audited, they would have financial information available down to the penny for "donations" but any description of whether that donation came in by way of the forum or by way of a walk-in off the street would probably not be available.

Then we're in agreement, as that's exactly what I've said earlier in this thread and others have said elsewhere.

It would certainly be _possible_ to generate more accurate data, but the current configuration does not do so; the data would only be available for the future.

Luke T.

6th April 2009, 01:44 PM

Then we're in agreement, as that's exactly what I've said earlier in this thread and others have said elsewhere.

As did I, but my post got split off (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139132). Weird, ain't? And here you been arguing with me about something we both agree on because of it.

theprestige

6th April 2009, 02:26 PM

So I hope that answers all your forum financial performance questions for this month.
I'm pretty sure the only person in this thread who actually had any forum financial performance questions was The Atheist. Unfortunately, he never actually got around to asking those questions, and since seems to have abandoned the entire line of inquiry. So I'm not sure who you're addressing, here.

The Atheist

6th April 2009, 02:48 PM

As did I, but my post got split off (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139132). Weird, ain't? And here you been arguing with me about something we both agree on because of it.

:dl:

Classic.

It's a pity we hate each other's guts, Luke, because we do agree on a few things.

I'm pretty sure the only person in this thread who actually had any forum financial performance questions was The Atheist. Unfortunately, he never actually got around to asking those questions,....

Don't be bloody ridiculous.

The OP starts with:

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

You might not understand the question, but it is exceedingly plain.

The answers to it so far have been:

Income - donations. Do not know.

Income - advertising - not stated.

theprestige

6th April 2009, 03:54 PM

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

You might not understand the question, but it is exceedingly plain.

The answers to it so far have been:

Income - donations. Do not know.

Income - advertising - not stated.
Alright, then.

So what?

The Atheist

6th April 2009, 04:21 PM

Alright, then.

So what?

Can you expand on the question a little, because I just find "So what" to be a bit open.

"So what", in relation to which what?

theprestige

6th April 2009, 04:40 PM

Can you expand on the question a little, because I just find "So what" to be a bit open.

"So what", in relation to which what?
You have assembled some information.

So what are you going to do with this information? Is it just information you have collected for the sake of collecting information? Is it information that leads you to a conclusion? Is it information that leads you to new questions?

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

The Atheist

6th April 2009, 05:08 PM

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

6th April 2009, 05:29 PM

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

6th April 2009, 05:31 PM

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

6th April 2009, 06:13 PM

'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

6th April 2009, 06:19 PM

... 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

7th April 2009, 11:08 AM

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 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4585856&postcount=180) 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

7th April 2009, 12:52 PM

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

7th April 2009, 03:20 PM

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

7th April 2009, 03:25 PM

He's "just asking questions"...

The Atheist

7th April 2009, 03:53 PM

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

7th April 2009, 04:10 PM

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

7th April 2009, 04:22 PM

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

7th April 2009, 06:19 PM

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

7th April 2009, 07:58 PM

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

The Atheist

7th April 2009, 08:47 PM

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

7th April 2009, 09:14 PM

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

7th April 2009, 09:25 PM

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

8th April 2009, 03:56 AM

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

8th April 2009, 09:04 AM

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

Moving the goalposts?

theprestige

8th April 2009, 10:39 AM

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

8th April 2009, 11:32 AM

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.