Apology from Richard Dawkins (Yes Really).

[klr]

Yes, it would be fun if he told us exactly what he said to Josh in private about his fucking-up of this transition.

But that isn't what a good leader would do. A good leader would rake him over the coals privately, then publicly take responsibility himself for what was done in his name and under his instructions. Dawkins did B. I think there's a fair chance that he did A as well, and that he and Josh had a long serious conversation which we will never hear.

It sounds like Dawkins made time to read what people have been saying- and it sounds like he's read the threads here, as well. Truly, if he wants to take his web site in a different direction, I have no real problem with that. All I really wanted was some evidence that he understood what had happened and had thought about it in a serious way, which it seems like he has now done.

I don't know whether I'll use the new rdnet or not. How could I know? I haven't seen it yet. But I'm considerably less pissed-off at Dawkins (though not necessarily at Josh) than I was yesterday.

Very likely the case - or at least it should be. The trouble is, he tends to be so effusive about Josh that it's hard to see him doing what needs to be done, even behind the scenes. But maybe this is the wake-up call he needs ...

[riddlemethis]

Posted this at RDF re Richards apology:

[quote=me]As one of the 'certain people' whose words have been bandied around both cyberspace and the mainstream media as indicative of everything that was wrong with RDF forums, it is probably appropriate that I contribute something here.

First. Richard, your words here are appreciated by many. In some measure myself included, although I am amused that it appears you think the only actions which can not be excused under the banner of 'only human' is the use of 'extreme language' as ad hominem under duress. Ironically you have been guilty of the self same crime very publicly some years ago & in a situation where you had no vested interest. So, that your apology does not apparently extend to those of us who (deliberately & I freely admit, childishly) offended your friend, who so deliberately maligned our friends, is a disappointment from where I stand. C'est la vie.

On the issue of insulting Josh Timonen, I will make an apology in one respect only & that is that I didn't confine my insults to things over-which he has personal control. It isn't like he hadn't provided plenty of insult-worthy action & I simply should have calmly stuck to that. My visceral reactions to his visage are things I should have kept private. This is, in part, my shame over this incident, but like you I will assuage my conscience with the secure knowledge that such behaviour is out of character for me & I am 'only human'.

More importantly as far as I am concerned, I would like to apologise here to the regular members of the forum where I did make those comments & to the ex-RDF'ers who were maligned by the mis-use of my comments. Although things can be fast and lose there, they deserved a second thought on my part before hitting the submit button. I think most of them know that I would never deliberately bring about such a situation & for my part in that I am sorry.[/quote]

I have some further comments along the lines of Kevin's comments regarding the complete over-reaction to criticisms of someone at this forum, which if made of a non-member at RDF wouldn't have batted an eye-lid. Got to run though.

[Reverend Blair]

You must have a better class of politician over there, that's all I can say. Seriously.

Well, naturally I'm comparing him to politicians I had respect for in the first place.

[klr]

You must have a better class of politician over there, that's all I can say. Seriously.

Well, naturally I'm comparing him to politicians I had respect for in the first place.

Nope, you've got me there.

[klr]

Posted this at RDF re Richards apology:

As one of the 'certain people' whose words have been bandied around both cyberspace and the mainstream media as indicative of everything that was wrong with RDF forums, it is probably appropriate that I contribute something here.

First. Richard, your words here are appreciated by many. In some measure myself included, although I am amused that it appears you think the only actions which can not be excused under the banner of 'only human' is the use of 'extreme language' as ad hominem under duress. Ironically you have been guilty of the self same crime very publicly some years ago & in a situation where you had no vested interest. So, that your apology does not apparently extend to those of us who (deliberately & I freely admit, childishly) offended your friend, who so deliberately maligned our friends, is a disappointment from where I stand. C'est la vie.

On the issue of insulting Josh Timonen, I will make an apology in one respect only & that is that I didn't confine my insults to things over-which he has personal control. It isn't like he hadn't provided plenty of insult-worthy action & I simply should have calmly stuck to that. My visceral reactions to his visage are things I should have kept private. This is, in part, my shame over this incident, but like you I will assuage my conscience with the secure knowledge that such behaviour is out of character for me & I am 'only human'.

More importantly as far as I am concerned, I would like to apologise here to the regular members of the forum where I did make those comments & to the ex-RDF'ers who were maligned by the mis-use of my comments. Although things can be fast and lose there, they deserved a second thought on my part before hitting the submit button. I think most of them know that I would never deliberately bring about such a situation & for my part in that I am sorry.

I have some further comments along the lines of Kevin's comments regarding the complete over-reaction to criticisms of someone at this forum, which if made of a non-member at RDF wouldn't have batted an eye-lid. Got to run though.

It will be interesting to see what happens if he has another go at someone on-line in the near future for whatever reason. He might find himself having to apologize in double-quick time. To be fair, he's done that before when requested.

[macdoc]

Nope, you've got me there.

Mandela

[Simon_Gardner]

Respect to RD!

Why should we trust you ... Comrade Nineberry?

Oh. I thought it was Billy Connolly.

[Banzai!]

this is a welcome development,

hopefully the waters will have been calmed somewhat and we can wait and see what transpires on the new site and with the old posts.

[klr]

Nope, you've got me there.

Mandela

I was specifically thinking Irish politicans. "Pack of gangsters" is how we lovingly refer to them.

[Reverend Blair]

You must have a better class of politician over there, that's all I can say. Seriously.

Well, naturally I'm comparing him to politicians I had respect for in the first place.

Nope, you've got me there.

It's a very small group.

[Squawk]

Dawkins goes back up a notch in my eyes for publically apologising. He's man enough to admit a mistake, and he's also enough of a boss not to publically lambast his employees. I presume someone has had a bollocking.

I still won't be going anywhere near the new forum. Actions here seem extremely similar to the old Catholic Joke.

"I prayed and prayed for a new bike but none ever came. Then I realised that's not how God works, so I stole one and asked for forgivness".

This episode has shown that Richard can apologise for a mistake, not an easy thing to do, but for me certain core issues are still left unaddressed. In particular the reference to trivialities and the quote mining. I'm not buying the bad presentation lark, that was quote mining and it was intentional, either from Richard or his sources.

Respect, to a degree, for apologising, but the actions that necessitated an apology should never have occured and will continue to leave a stain in my eyes. There are now better places to post, places where your content hasn't been shown to be in jeopordy.

[Stagman]

Dawkins goes back up a notch in my eyes for publically apologising. He's man enough to admit a mistake, and he's also enough of a boss not to publically lambast his employees. I presume someone has had a bollocking.
---
Respect, to a degree, for apologising, but the actions that necessitated an apology should never have occured and will continue to leave a stain in my eyes. There are now better places to post, places where your content hasn't been shown to be in jeopordy.

My sentiments are rather similar.

[charlou]

That's Better Well done Richard .

+1

Thank you, Richard, and all the best with your Australian tour.

[pErvinalia]

I dropped a couple of comments in there thanking him, but pointing out that there are still unresolved issues. Most importantly though, I would like to ask people who are thinking about going back there to think long and hard about whether they want anything to do with a site managed by the same twits who fucked everything up last week. My view is, that as a matter of principle, I won't have anything to do with the place until I hear of a sacking/demotion, or at the very least an apology from the website admin team. I would like others to adopt this position as well in the hope that we might get an apology out of them.

[pErvinalia]

By the way, Riddlemethis, I posted a comment addressing your post on the apology thread. In short, it is a comment of qualified support of your actions.