RD net down and I found this

[Lozzer]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... html?cat=9

Marijuana

It is true that Jews love money

Why are gay people so laim? pft

Why is is wrong to kill people you don't like?

lol? Thread titles suddenly reflect the political or social persuasion of a forum?
I thought it reflected the attitudes of the members that posted them.

Oh well, people are FUCKING MORONS WHO SHOULD BE WIPED OFF THE FACE OF THE PLANET.
Srsly.

[Ayaan]

Judging from the first part of the article, it sounds like some believer rant.

Regarding 1 and 2 of that numbered list - most of the people there are most familiar with christianty and most of the trolls and preachers who show up at RDF are christian. However, you can find plenty of threads criticizing islam - it's just that fewer people at RDF have direct experience with islam.

I don't know who or what the website that article came from is, but I can tell you that out of that list, 3,4, and 5 will get you a warning, suspension or a ban.

Legalizing illegal drugs is frequently discussed there with posters being both for and against. (6)

I remember those thread titles, but I don't recall the content. We get quite a few people starting thread with titles the exact opposite of the OP just to get attention for their thread. I'd have to be able to look at them to be sure. And of course, there is always the troll factor to consider.

RDF isn't perfect, but this is just some slam article.

[klr]

The site has been down for at least an hour now.

As to to threads highlighted: They don't really indicate anything IMHO. A good proportion of posters who start/promote such topics tend to end up getting banned, and the threads tend not to be anywhere near as bad as the titles indicate. There was a time about two years ago when it was editorially much more liberal, and there were serious ructions over an influx of really far-right types, most of whom were eventually (and unceremoniously) removed due to a policy shift.

This assertion in the article is plainly nuts:

Noticeably not commenting too much on Islam - due to fear/cowardice.

I'm not sure what this one means:

Vehemently anti-Christian - due to lack of reprisals.

What sort of "reprisals"?

Wiki has this to say about Associated Content:

Associated Content (AC) is an online publisher and distributor of original content. Associated Content enables anyone to publish their content on any topic, pays them for their work, and distributes that content through its website and content partners.

The bias of the AC author in this case is revealed by comments such as this:

Geneticists tend to believe that the stuff of life came from a primordial soup 5 million years ago. They tend not to believe that there is a possibilty that a creator of some sort or another could have been involved.

Leaving aside the fact that (s)he has the origin of life out by at least, oh, 3.5 billion years, and that this is not really the domain of geneticists anyway ...

Ignore the article: It's no more relevant (or accurate) than many a groundless opinion piece published by some high-profile hack in an established news organ. In fact, it's a good deal less.

[Ayaan]

I just looked at the name of the author. It's someone who got banned at RDF for continued personal attacks (IIRC).

[klr]

I just looked at the name of the author. It's someone who got banned at RDF for continued personal attacks (IIRC).

Wait ... what's the chance that his banning occurred before this article was published? :twisted:

That's the problem with the Internet: Anyone can post something, and by making it look half-professional and authoritative, some people will swallow it without examining it's provenance or substance.

[Ayaan]

I just looked at the name of the author. It's someone who got banned at RDF for continued personal attacks (IIRC).

Wait ... what's the chance that his banning occurred before this article was published? :twisted:

I'm sure it was.

That's the problem with the Internet: Anyone can post something, and by making it look half-professional and authoritative, some people will swallow it without examining it's provenance or substance.

Yes, it is a problem. But a few will take the time to investigate and actually find out the truth.

[lordpasternack]

And Richard did not become an atheist after studying genetics. He became an atheist after realising that Evolution could account for the diversity and apparent "design" of all living things. And I don't believe he even studied "genetics" per se - he focussed primarily on zoology at Oxford.

[klr]

And Richard did not become an atheist after studying genetics. He became an atheist after realising that Evolution could account for the diversity and apparent "design" of all living things. And I don't believe he even studied "genetics" per se - I focussed primarily on zoology at Oxford.

He became an atheist whilst still at school IIRC, not long after Crick and Watson (et al) did their stuff. It would have been quite something for genetics as we know it to be on his school curriculum.

I think this piece of tripe calls for one of my all-time favourite words: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokusatsu

[Clinton Huxley]

Regarding the OP - The fellow who wrote that ludicrous anti-dawk screed - can we get him on here? Sounds like just the kind of pompous moron who would brighten up the place considerably.

[Achtland]

Regarding the OP - The fellow who wrote that ludicrous anti-dawk screed - can we get him on here? Sounds like just the kind of pompous moron who would brighten up the place considerably.

+100

[charlou]

Consider the pompous moron invited ...

Either that or join us over at rationalia http://rationalia.com/forum/index.php ... You'll be most ... welcome ...

The fellow who wrote that ludicrous anti-dawk screed - can we get him on here? Sounds like just the kind of pompous moron who would brighten up the place considerably.

Add a Comment

Posted on 06/10/2009 at 7:06:28 AM

I won't hold my breath ...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Consider the pompous moron invited ...

Either that or join us over at rationalia http://rationalia.com/forum/index.php ... You'll be most ... welcome ...

The fellow who wrote that ludicrous anti-dawk screed - can we get him on here? Sounds like just the kind of pompous moron who would brighten up the place considerably.

Add a Comment

Posted on 06/10/2009 at 7:06:28 AM

I won't hold my breath ...

[charlou]

Heh, my two posts and another by ... chiggles ... have been deleted ...


Here's my latest:

You censor people who challenge your view. How proud you must be.
Add a Comment

Posted on 06/10/2009 at 9:06:01 AM

[Ace]

I thought I'd pay a quick visit to RD.net after a longful 8 months of being away. Can't sign in but could see technical forum. I've noticed RD.net is no better from when I left it 8 months ago. I've noticed a few complaints here and there and read through them. It's a shame the mods would go that low.

Glad I'm not a member there anymore.

[Kristie]

I also visited there today after not going there for some time. I saw a post made by Jain making sure everyone in a specific thread remembered the rules regarding talk about sex. I quoted it and said something like 'I'd forgotten why I stopped posting here. Thanks for reminding me'. It was deleted within minutes.