4 ms·

> In that year, John Steele was paid $2,408,000 for "consulting fees” This isn’t true, and people here should stop repeating it. These payments were to Nautilu

> In that year, John Steele was paid $2,408,000 for "consulting fees” This isn’t true, and people here should stop repeating it. These payments were to Nautilus Ventures LCC, which Steele owns. It’s not totally clear what this is for, but if I had to guess I’d say these are publishing costs that Steele has spun out into a separate entity (probably for tax purposes). It’s possible that Steele is using these payments to enrich himself, but this line on the 990 isn’t good evidence of that.

jawns 9y ago
I can't edit my post anymore, but you're correct that the payments went to an entity that Steele owns, and Steele's own comment (as user nautilus) describes it as a pass-through. So I'm willing to let that go. The rest of my opinion hasn't changed, though. I think Steele is using his staff's ignorance as a red herring, and I highly doubt that top-rate writers will want to work for Nautilus in the future.
- pvg 9y ago
  So I'm willing to let that go. You're willing to let it go? You accused someone of some kind of massive financial impropriety without any serious evidence. Other people started repeating it as fact. You owe that person an apology and a retraction and yourself some reflection beyond a rather generous 'letting it go'.
- praneshp 9y ago
  > So I'm willing to let that go. Ha who the hell are you to let anything go? You are a liar that made a random claim without bothering to verify anything.
  - pdabbadabba 9y ago
    Now I think we're getting a little harsh. I agree that GP was incorrect, but I don't see any reason to think this was anything more than a good-faith misreading of a less-than-clear form.
pessimizer 9y ago
> and people here should stop repeating it. Or maybe they should repeat it until it's acknowledged, corrected, and they're satisfied with the answer?
- pdabbadabba 9y ago
  I don't follow. You seem to be suggesting that we simply repeat a proposition for which we have no good evidence ("Steele was paid $2.5 million"), or a proposition which is verifiably false ("the Form 990 says that Steele was paid $2.5 million"), until someone can convince us to stop. First of all, I would have thought I've already provided enough evidence to correct the latter assertion to any reasonable person's satisfaction. And second, simply repeating an accusation for which we have no solid evidence is, at best, inconsistent with rational discourse. And at worst will get you sued for defamation. I have no problem at all with people asking where the money went. Bot that's not what you seem to be suggesting, and it's certainly not what I recommended people stop doing. It's also worth noting that Nautilus itself has weighed in to address this elsewhere in this thread: >In 2015 Nautilus was transferred from an LLC to a 501(c)(3). As the transfer was in process, NautilusThink paid Nautilus Venture LLC to produce the magazine because the staff and contracts were still in the name of Nautilus Ventures. Is was a cost passthrough. Nautilus is fully owned by NautilusThink and Nautilus Ventures was closed.

jawns 9y ago

I can't edit my post anymore, but you're correct that the payments went to an entity that Steele owns, and Steele's own comment (as user nautilus) describes it as a pass-through. So I'm willing to let that go. The rest of my opinion hasn't changed, though. I think Steele is using his staff's ignorance as a red herring, and I highly doubt that top-rate writers will want to work for Nautilus in the future.

pvg 9y ago
So I'm willing to let that go. You're willing to let it go? You accused someone of some kind of massive financial impropriety without any serious evidence. Other people started repeating it as fact. You owe that person an apology and a retraction and yourself some reflection beyond a rather generous 'letting it go'.
praneshp 9y ago
> So I'm willing to let that go. Ha who the hell are you to let anything go? You are a liar that made a random claim without bothering to verify anything.
- pdabbadabba 9y ago
  Now I think we're getting a little harsh. I agree that GP was incorrect, but I don't see any reason to think this was anything more than a good-faith misreading of a less-than-clear form.

pessimizer 9y ago

> and people here should stop repeating it. Or maybe they should repeat it until it's acknowledged, corrected, and they're satisfied with the answer?

pdabbadabba 9y ago
I don't follow. You seem to be suggesting that we simply repeat a proposition for which we have no good evidence ("Steele was paid $2.5 million"), or a proposition which is verifiably false ("the Form 990 says that Steele was paid $2.5 million"), until someone can convince us to stop. First of all, I would have thought I've already provided enough evidence to correct the latter assertion to any reasonable person's satisfaction. And second, simply repeating an accusation for which we have no solid evidence is, at best, inconsistent with rational discourse. And at worst will get you sued for defamation. I have no problem at all with people asking where the money went. Bot that's not what you seem to be suggesting, and it's certainly not what I recommended people stop doing. It's also worth noting that Nautilus itself has weighed in to address this elsewhere in this thread: >In 2015 Nautilus was transferred from an LLC to a 501(c)(3). As the transfer was in process, NautilusThink paid Nautilus Venture LLC to produce the magazine because the staff and contracts were still in the name of Nautilus Ventures. Is was a cost passthrough. Nautilus is fully owned by NautilusThink and Nautilus Ventures was closed.