Please sign here/Open Letter - RE: Richard Dawkins Forum

[hotshoe]

It wasn't a comment on your post! Just bookmarking the appearance of this Shielson fellow...

Heehee.

No, seriously, good idea. Could be more fun than the rest of us sincere but boring posters.

Without the cachet of Dawkins' name to draw in the dregs of irrationality for "combat", we will have to find our fun where we can.

[mark1961]

As the copious words prompted by the revamp and temporary closure of Richard Dawkins’ forum attest, those by Peter Harrison not the least, truth takes many forms.

Having read some of Peter’s past missionary devotions delivering angst-ridden waifs from the evil clutches of their Christian relatives, I’m not really all that surprised. Who better for erecting damning edifices on the skimpiest of evidence, expediently boosting own web-site’s hits and personal stocks no end?

Much of this post flew over my head. Most of it quite frankly flew under it as well. This extract however did cause a little ire. An attempt by I feel PH's actions in good faith (how I love that irony) to counsel another in a difficult time is laudable. The snideness of the above comment is evidence of it's own fallacy. When viewed with my own experience of fellow humans.

Yet more evidence of the damage RD's clusterfuck has made. There will be fewer of these incidents. We live in, I hope a world where we can choose what to believe and what suits us as individuals. What's wrong about helping a person be what they want?

(experimenting with italics, boding and colour please comment)

[Shrunk]

Here's what I've posted on the open letter:

The message that should have been sent, but wasn't:

Dear forum members,

We wanted you all to know at the earliest opportunity about our new website currently in development.

The new RichardDawkins.net will have a fully-integrated discussion section. This will be a new feature for the site, similar to the current forum, but not identical. We feel the new system will be much cleaner and easier to use, and hopefully this will encourage participation from a wider variety of users.

The new discussion area will not be a new forum. It will be different. Starting a new discussion will require approval, so we ask that you only submit new discussions that are truly relevant to reason and science. Subsequent responses on the thread will not need approval—however anything off topic or violating the new terms of service will be removed. The approval process will be there to ensure the quality of posts on the site. This is purely an editorial exercise to help new visitors find quality content quickly.

This does mean, however, that the scope of discussion in the new format will be much limited compared to the present. We recognize this will not be a welcome change to many current members. However, we feel that this more focused format better reflects the goals of the RDF and, in the end, will make the board attractive to a larger group of potential members.

This change aside, our goal is for the remaining discussion boards to continue to function in much the same way as it has. We recognize that the forum could not have achieved anything near its current success without the tireless work of our team of volunteer moderators. We wish to assure you that the moderation team will continue to be involved in the operation of the new board. The degree of involvement and time required of them may be less with the new format, but we suspect they will not find this to be an entirely unwelcome change!

One question that is certain to arise is "What will happen to the content of the old forum?"' Over the time the board has been in existence, it has become a repository of a vast amount to valuable information on science and rational thought, unique on the internet, and this is a resource should remain available. We are not yet sure whether or how this can be integrated into the new format, but we wish to assure you that the content will remain accessible in some form. (We welcome any suggestions on how this could best be accomplished). In the meantime, the board will continue to operate as usual until the new format becomes operational. After that, it will remain available in a "read only" format, until we can decide on the best option to preserve the older posts.

We thank you all again for you support and hope we can continue to count on it in the exciting times ahead.

If a message of this sort had been sent, instead of the one that actually was, the changes in the board would have been effected more or less as the RDF envisaged, without offending and alienating the members who made the forum what is was, and without embarrassing and compromising the mission of the RDF.

[tortouse]

If a message of this sort had been sent, instead of the one that actually was, the changes in the board would have been effected more or less as the RDF envisaged, without offending and alienating the members who made the forum what is was, and without embarrassing and compromising the mission of the RDF.

amen ... er, i think this is fantastic shrunk, what a great shame to clear thinking that this wasn't posted by josh in the first place.

[Equivokate]

I will sign and comment. I am *appalled at how the now RDF Community has been treated*

[Pensioner]

I have just changed my Avatar for the last time on RDF.

[Meekychuppet]

*Checks back in after a month or so*

Yup, Dawkins is still a dick.

[Pensioner]

*Checks back in after a month or so*

Yup, Dawkins is still a dick.

+1