News coverage

[fredbear]

whilst i do not doubt that richard dawkins is a decent human being his hubris is clear and imo the apology seems politically motivated.

as i wrote last night on rs.com;

if i were advising rd in pr terms i would say make as full an apology as you can, they will come running back like puppies, then you will be at liberty to throw them a few crumbs but essentially enact the changes you wanted as well as appearing the true rational leader able to admit his human fallibility. win bloody win. keep a fixed smile with your essentially rabid, infantile (thus dangerous) fanbase and all will be well in the world.

it brought this to mind.



i hope i don't appear churlish. i gues the man was damned if he did and damned if he didn't but the delay and his continued use of the 3 comments off this forum as a justification for his reaction together with the qualified apology and no real suggestions for resurrecting a worldwide supportive community makes the apology ring hollow for me.

i posted this on the first page of the commentary on the apology post.

whilst i have admiration for richard's admission of fallibility and qualified apology, i remain disheartened by the evidence of this debacle. i will continue to support him in his public endeavours but i will feel happier engaging in an online community without the fanbase tag. thank you richard for having set up a community that helped me at a time i needed advice.

EDIT;(1-3-10)
i would like to make a further important point.The three comments you highlighted in your "outrage" letter were made by three decent,funny,intelligent,respected and normally mild-mannered posters. They made those comments in my opinion, from the context in which they were written, in the same satirical and edgy style adopted by the forum on which they were posted. They were run with by the media because they were well worded and at times i'm sorry to point out amusing. i repeat these posters are decent not the foaming at the mouth vigilantes portrayed in your letter and repeated by lazy hacks as examples of the disintegration of standards on the net.
to use these comments is in my opinion like a politician quote mining a particularly robust post scandal episode of "have i got news for you" and using those comments to garner support. i can understand your support for your employee but please seek to put those comments in context. that said i'm sure many posters, just like you, are regretting posts made in hurt disbelief at the heavy handed actions that were taken by the admin team.


that said i can move on as frankly i have seen enough to have come to my own conclusions. i like the fact i am now a free agent and not restricted any concerns for someone's pr. i have evolved. i iz independent. good luck to rd.net and all who sail in her.

[hackenslash]

^^^ Remains to be seen, but I think a personal apology to each of the staff and to those whose contributions were wiped out isn't too much to expect, but Richard's very busy atm so give him a bit of time, eh? Hopefully he'll find a quiet moment in the not too distant future to give this the attention it deserves.

As usual, Charlou demonstrates the clear head we have come to know and love. :toast:

[Dory]

Post-RD's apology, I am rather hopeful. Dawkins forum was really never meant to be a place to goof around, you just had the ability to which was nice, but I guess seen as detrimental. Heck, what do I know, I am just hopeful atheists will have a major place to talk about their serious issues, and we all know that place has to be the Dawkins forum, because the guy is the biggest atheist figurehead...if atheists just wanna goof off they can always come here.

No biggie, really, mountain out of a molehill, but people love the drama...

[SevenOfNine]

And what about people like Darwin'sbulldog who had all their stuff deleted? Does this apology make it right for them? Isn't such an action unforgiveable? Or at least are they going to find someway to make this right?

Perhaps if Josh had an entire back up of the entire forum they could.

Hmmmm..., I am in two minds about this. On general principles, deleting user posts [as opposed to sending them to recycle bin , [as was our mod policy regarding spam, pron etc] is reprehensible. Just imagine a sysadmin deleting user accounts at a bank without due process. In my case, I am not on absolutely solid ground.

I did ban one of chalker's mod level accounts [he has I presume, his site-admin account, and Jan/Topsy restored it quickly anyway], but I did not delete his posts. I believe that either or both Chalkers and Josh did some creative work on the database logs also, but for that you will need some proof elsewhere.

Even though I did the ban in response to Chalkers deletion of Mazelle and other members, and to make it plain he was incompetent and well over his depth as a manager and database tech. I am not exactly a totally innocent party as I did not consult with my colleagues in mod central, so that they could not be held to account for my actions.

So long as Josh and Andrew keep behaving as they do, I have no interest in RDF.net forum. Their actions do seem to warrant some disciplinary action, but that is Richard's D. business.... as a proven master of reason, I do hope he does something about it.
In any event, I am finished with RDF.net personally. I do hope some reforms are made, as the forum was, and perhaps still can be, a major force for reason on the net.

[klr]

And what about people like Darwin'sbulldog who had all their stuff deleted? Does this apology make it right for them? Isn't such an action unforgiveable? Or at least are they going to find someway to make this right?

Perhaps if Josh had an entire back up of the entire forum they could.

Hmmmm..., I am in two minds about this. On general principles, deleting user posts [as opposed to sending them to recycle bin , [as was our mod policy regarding spam, pron etc] is reprehensible. Just imagine a sysadmin deleting user accounts at a bank without due process. In my case, I am not on absolutely solid ground.

I did ban one of chalker's mod level accounts [he has I presume, his site-admin account, and Jan/Topsy restored it quickly anyway], but I did not delete his posts. I believe that either or both Chalkers and Josh did some creative work on the database logs also, but for that you will need some proof elsewhere.

Even though I did the ban in response to Chalkers deletion of Mazelle and other members, and to make it plain he was incompetent and well over his depth as a manager and database tech. I am not exactly a totally innocent party as I did not consult with my colleagues in mod central, so that they could not be held to account for my actions.

So long as Josh and Andrew keep behaving as they do, I have no interest in RDF.net forum. Their actions do seem to warrant some disciplinary action, but that is Richard's D. business.... as a proven master of reason, I do hope he does something about it.
In any event, I am finished with RDF.net personally. I do hope some reforms are made, as the forum was, and perhaps still can be, a major force for reason on the net.

FWIW, I'd have done the same. Anyone who is seen to be deleting user accounts and posts needs to be stopped immediately. No hanging about. It doesn't matter who or what they are IMHO. The action you took was reversible. His wasn't - at least not without an awful lot of time and effort, and even there's no guarantee everything will be in the last backup.

[Alan B]

It's adequate, what I want to see if the forum repaired with the reinstatement from the last backup of the deleted posts.

And that for me is where the "rubber hits the road". I shall be most interested to see that too. If this is purely some window dressing in the hope it can calm everyone, but nothing significant will change, then I shall wait to see if the negative feelings continue.

Do I think he will genuinely sort this out properly? I am skeptical

A step in the right direction and a mark of his sincerity would be re-writing the FUA so that:
1. The Intellectual Property Rights of the poster remains the property of the poster and is not assumed to be the property of RDF. This announcement to be retrospective so that posters that posted under previous FUAs should have their Intellectual Property Rights restored.

2. The right of RDF to use any material posted on the RDF shall be subject to the permission of the poster. The clause stating that posters rights are waived in favour of RDF shall be removed.

3. Posters who leave the forum for whatever reason shall have their posts retained on the forum (to maintain continuity of threads) unless requested to be removed by the poster.

4. Posts and accounts shall not be removed without a warning and with an explanation being posted by the admin or mods (so that we all know the reason).

If RDF made a backup before this mass deletion (which any competent IT person would do), then restoring the system wouldn't be a problem. If not, then that further indicates the inexperience and pettiness of the people concerned.

In the event of no backup, then it should not be a problem for the HDD to be forensically recovered.

The note I made on page 9 of this thread about "other public posting areas" was removed from the FUA shortly after I made that comment. Thus it appears that RDF are continually monitoring these fora and making alterations to cover their tracks.
I have made a copy of the Feb 26th FUA (dated Jan. 2010) so if there is any further 'covering-up' it will be noticed.

Edit a bit.

[fredbear]

The note I made on page 9 of this thread about "other public posting areas" was removed from the FUA shortly after I made that comment. Thus it appears that RDF are continually monitoring these fora and making alterations to cover their tracks.
I have made a copy of the Feb 26th FUA (dated Jan. 2010) so if there is any further 'covering-up' it will be noticed.

interesting.

[Chris Wilkins]

Okey, dokey.

My articles about Ken Ham and Richard Dawkins are now published. If are remotely interested you can see them at www.casualravings.com.

My commentary about Richard is open and free. The interview with Ken is not and is "locked" (well, actually, it sort of is, but you have to register. Twice).

Enjoy. And I shall be waiting to see if you all think they are fair or if I have sold my soul.

Cheers,

Chris.

[Shrunk]

I'm afraid to say I'm not very impressed, Mr. Wilkins. One particular passage, for example:

(Ken Ham) has been branded by what he terms the “New Atheists” as being rabid and trying to “attack” the world of education, civilisation and science.

“What attack? Who is attacking who?” Ham points out that for more than 50 years in the US it has been illegal to teach creationism in schools or even pray.

“It seems to me that the evolutionists have won the field. So where’s the impending attack?”

He has a point. Evolution (ed. I assume you meant to say "creationism" here) is out of the schools in the USA and secularism has swept through Europe, most notably in France. Even Greece, staunchly religious, is considering banning morning prayers from schools and getting rid of all their crosses.

I asked him about the abuse aimed at him. Did he do anything to attract this?

“I think my museum acts as a lightning rod for intolerance. But all we do is have our museum, put forward our viewpoint, and leave it at that. We don’t try an indoctrinate anyone. It is up to people to make up their own minds. But of course we are going to present ourselves in a convincing manner wherever we can.”

Again, seems fair to me.

Ham's position here amounts to complaining that schools do not give supernatural superstition consideration and status equal to that given rigorously supported science in, uh, science classes. Ham and his fellow creationists have been actively trying to overturn this by pushing legislation in various states that attempt to circumvent the usual peer-review process and teach children the blatant lie that scientific evidence supports the myths of a 3000 year old book. This is clearly an attack and an attempt at indoctrination. For him to characterize opposition to his efforts as "intolerance" is highly unjustified, and does not "seem fair" in the least.

No one is attacking Ham or preventing him from expressing his views. What they are doing is criticizing and ridiculing those views, because that is the only response those views deserve. If this hurts Ham's feelings, well, tough shit.

And your portrayal of Ham as an innocent lamb who never stoop to making a disparaging comment about the beliefs of his nasty, mean opponents is laughable. Here is just one passage from his website, that belies that claim:

Hitler’s understanding of the history of life, and that of Marx, Stalin and Mao, was not devised by a German, Russian or Chinese. It was shaped by an Englishman named Charles Darwin.

Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859), laid the groundwork for their worldviews. They each applied the principle of ‘survival of the fittest’ to their own situation.

For Marx and Stalin it was class struggle; for Hitler it was racial struggle. And because Darwinism undermined the authority of the Bible on origins, it meant that, logically, there was no accountability to God for the mass murder they used to implement their ideas. In fact, such tactics could be justified by Darwinism. Without an absolute standard of right and wrong, those in power are not accountable to any standard. So ‘might’ becomes ‘right’.

As Darwin’s evolutionary thinking became widely welcomed and absorbed by society, it not only convinced leaders like Marx and Hitler, but it became a ‘scientific’ framework justifying the public acceptance of their actions for the ‘benefit’ of all humanity.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... /n2/darwin

[Calilasseia]

fuck me ! so many people are suddenly so excited by the future changes.

Ah, tis easy to get the flock running back. A few kind words, a laying of hands on the forehead, and all is forgiven.

As I said, but what if the changes he now promises are bs, and this is merely an attemp to contain the damage?

I am sure he would have been told he had to say something, that until he did this would just get bigger and bigger.

Also makes me giggle. I was told by various people a few days ago this was all a storm in a tea cup. Seems it wasn't now.

I wonder if the news that Richard has apologised will be reported as widely as the news that a nasty bunch of foul -mouths were attacking the poor innocent Josh?

Well since I've just pointed Ruth Gledhill at RD's apology, we can all have lots of fun waiting to see if she gives it as much publicity as the original spat. A little bird tells me that this might require some serious prodding on the part of the reality defenders.

Meanwhile, with respect to this:

(Ken Ham) has been branded by what he terms the “New Atheists” as being rabid and trying to “attack” the world of education, civilisation and science.

“What attack? Who is attacking who?” Ham points out that for more than 50 years in the US it has been illegal to teach creationism in schools or even pray.

“It seems to me that the evolutionists have won the field. So where’s the impending attack?”

He has a point. Evolution (ed. I assume you meant to say "creationism" here) is out of the schools in the USA and secularism has swept through Europe, most notably in France. Even Greece, staunchly religious, is considering banning morning prayers from schools and getting rid of all their crosses.

I asked him about the abuse aimed at him. Did he do anything to attract this?

“I think my museum acts as a lightning rod for intolerance. But all we do is have our museum, put forward our viewpoint, and leave it at that. We don’t try an indoctrinate anyone. It is up to people to make up their own minds. But of course we are going to present ourselves in a convincing manner wherever we can.”

Again, seems fair to me.

Ham's comment is epically disingenuous. He is one of the leaders of corporate creationism in the USA, and he knows damn well that his lucrative career depends for its very existence upon having people indoctrinated with his mythology-based nonsense. Which is why he employs people to post lies on his website. And I KNOW they are lies, because I have dealt with them and destroyed them on the old Richard Dawkins Forums. Take that mendacious piece about 14C dating by the hilariously named Mike Riddle, for example, in which the scientific integrity of the Nobel Laureate Willard Libby is duplicitously traduced. I dealt with that head on, as at least one link I have provided you demonstrates amply. I demonstrated that the defamatory remarks about Libby engaging in "sloppy practice" werw bare faced lies, along with the fatuous statement that Libby held an a priori "belief in evolution". Biological evolution had bothing to do with Libby's work, which he performed in a separate scientific disciplne, namely chemistry, and it was the application of a well known tool in analytical chemistry, namely the construction of calibration curves based upon known data, that allowed him to place 14C dating on a rigorous basis. Even an elementary reading of Libby's Nobel Lecture tells us this.

Now, the fact is, that nothing goes on the Arsewater in Genesis website unless it receives Ken Ham's approval, which means that Ken Ham approved of the traducing of Libby's reputation, taking mendacious advantage of the legal principle that one cannot libel the dead. He approved of the publication of that tacky little propaganda screed, trying to fling shit at the reputation of a Nobel Laureate, in order to propagandise for a masturbation fantasy of a doctrine that arises from theological pornography - indeed, Catholic bishops here in the UK take the stance that Ham's brand of fundmentalist theology is heretical, and that his insistence upon the literal truth of the farcical Genesis myth is fatuous on the basis of being flatly contradicted by reality.

[Chris Wilkins]

I'm afraid to say I'm not very impressed, Mr. Wilkins. One particular passage, for example:

(Ken Ham) has been branded by what he terms the “New Atheists” as being rabid and trying to “attack” the world of education, civilisation and science.

“What attack? Who is attacking who?” Ham points out that for more than 50 years in the US it has been illegal to teach creationism in schools or even pray.

“It seems to me that the evolutionists have won the field. So where’s the impending attack?”

He has a point. Evolution (ed. I assume you meant to say "creationism" here) is out of the schools in the USA and secularism has swept through Europe, most notably in France. Even Greece, staunchly religious, is considering banning morning prayers from schools and getting rid of all their crosses.

I asked him about the abuse aimed at him. Did he do anything to attract this?

“I think my museum acts as a lightning rod for intolerance. But all we do is have our museum, put forward our viewpoint, and leave it at that. We don’t try an indoctrinate anyone. It is up to people to make up their own minds. But of course we are going to present ourselves in a convincing manner wherever we can.”

Again, seems fair to me.

Ham's position here amounts to complaining that schools do not give supernatural superstition consideration and status equal to that given rigorously supported science in, uh, science classes. Ham and his fellow creationists have been actively trying to overturn this by pushing legislation in various states that attempt to circumvent the usual peer-review process and teach children the blatant lie that scientific evidence supports the myths of a 3000 year old book. This is clearly an attack and an attempt at indoctrination. For him to characterize opposition to his efforts as "intolerance" is highly unjustified, and does not "seem fair" in the least.

No one is attacking Ham or preventing him from expressing his views. What they are doing is criticizing and ridiculing those views, because that is the only response those views deserve. If this hurts Ham's feelings, well, tough shit.

And your portrayal of Ham as an innocent lamb who never stoop to making a disparaging comment about the beliefs of his nasty, mean opponents is laughable. Here is just one passage from his website, that belies that claim:

Hitler’s understanding of the history of life, and that of Marx, Stalin and Mao, was not devised by a German, Russian or Chinese. It was shaped by an Englishman named Charles Darwin.

Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859), laid the groundwork for their worldviews. They each applied the principle of ‘survival of the fittest’ to their own situation.

For Marx and Stalin it was class struggle; for Hitler it was racial struggle. And because Darwinism undermined the authority of the Bible on origins, it meant that, logically, there was no accountability to God for the mass murder they used to implement their ideas. In fact, such tactics could be justified by Darwinism. Without an absolute standard of right and wrong, those in power are not accountable to any standard. So ‘might’ becomes ‘right’.

As Darwin’s evolutionary thinking became widely welcomed and absorbed by society, it not only convinced leaders like Marx and Hitler, but it became a ‘scientific’ framework justifying the public acceptance of their actions for the ‘benefit’ of all humanity.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... /n2/darwin

Sigh. I am not going to explain Journalism 101 to you. My job in this it to try and remove my own opinion from it. No, I was never going to take a side in this. Of course he said something you don't agree with. And my job is to report it, even if it's barmy.

Plus I will agree that what you posted here does contradict what he told me. And is barmy. So good. Can always do an update.

Plus if Richard had spoken to me I'm sure he would have had something to say about Ham's comments. But as he won't, there wasn't much I could do.

If you want someone to write a subjective piece, you need a PR person (actually, Richard does too), and not a journalist. Yes, they are the same thing but wear different hats.

[Chris Wilkins]

fuck me ! so many people are suddenly so excited by the future changes.

Ah, tis easy to get the flock running back. A few kind words, a laying of hands on the forehead, and all is forgiven.

As I said, but what if the changes he now promises are bs, and this is merely an attemp to contain the damage?

I am sure he would have been told he had to say something, that until he did this would just get bigger and bigger.

Also makes me giggle. I was told by various people a few days ago this was all a storm in a tea cup. Seems it wasn't now.

I wonder if the news that Richard has apologised will be reported as widely as the news that a nasty bunch of foul -mouths were attacking the poor innocent Josh?

Well since I've just pointed Ruth Gledhill at RD's apology, we can all have lots of fun waiting to see if she gives it as much publicity as the original spat. A little bird tells me that this might require some serious prodding on the part of the reality defenders.

Meanwhile, with respect to this:

(Ken Ham) has been branded by what he terms the “New Atheists” as being rabid and trying to “attack” the world of education, civilisation and science.

“What attack? Who is attacking who?” Ham points out that for more than 50 years in the US it has been illegal to teach creationism in schools or even pray.

“It seems to me that the evolutionists have won the field. So where’s the impending attack?”

He has a point. Evolution (ed. I assume you meant to say "creationism" here) is out of the schools in the USA and secularism has swept through Europe, most notably in France. Even Greece, staunchly religious, is considering banning morning prayers from schools and getting rid of all their crosses.

I asked him about the abuse aimed at him. Did he do anything to attract this?

“I think my museum acts as a lightning rod for intolerance. But all we do is have our museum, put forward our viewpoint, and leave it at that. We don’t try an indoctrinate anyone. It is up to people to make up their own minds. But of course we are going to present ourselves in a convincing manner wherever we can.”

Again, seems fair to me.

Ham's comment is epically disingenuous. He is one of the leaders of corporate creationism in the USA, and he knows damn well that his lucrative career depends for its very existence upon having people indoctrinated with his mythology-based nonsense. Which is why he employs people to post lies on his website. And I KNOW they are lies, because I have dealt with them and destroyed them on the old Richard Dawkins Forums. Take that mendacious piece about 14C dating by the hilariously named Mike Riddle, for example, in which the scientific integrity of the Nobel Laureate Willard Libby is duplicitously traduced. I dealt with that head on, as at least one link I have provided you demonstrates amply. I demonstrated that the defamatory remarks about Libby engaging in "sloppy practice" werw bare faced lies, along with the fatuous statement that Libby held an a priori "belief in evolution". Biological evolution had bothing to do with Libby's work, which he performed in a separate scientific disciplne, namely chemistry, and it was the application of a well known tool in analytical chemistry, namely the construction of calibration curves based upon known data, that allowed him to place 14C dating on a rigorous basis. Even an elementary reading of Libby's Nobel Lecture tells us this.

Now, the fact is, that nothing goes on the Arsewater in Genesis website unless it receives Ken Ham's approval, which means that Ken Ham approved of the traducing of Libby's reputation, taking mendacious advantage of the legal principle that one cannot libel the dead. He approved of the publication of that tacky little propaganda screed, trying to fling shit at the reputation of a Nobel Laureate, in order to propagandise for a masturbation fantasy of a doctrine that arises from theological pornography - indeed, Catholic bishops here in the UK take the stance that Ham's brand of fundmentalist theology is heretical, and that his insistence upon the literal truth of the farcical Genesis myth is fatuous on the basis of being flatly contradicted by reality.

Now this, Calilasseia, is wonderful. Cold-stone facts refuting what Ham says. This is something I can work with (rather than some saying "you got it wrong, you sob").

Thanks a ton for responding with this.

[klr]

...
If you want someone to write a subjective piece, you need a PR person (actually, Richard does too), and not a journalist. Yes, they are the same thing but wear different hats.

Quite. He was our greatest asset in exposing this entire mess to public attention. We probably couldn't have done it without him and his "outrage" piece.

[Chris Wilkins]

...
If you want someone to write a subjective piece, you need a PR person (actually, Richard does too), and not a journalist. Yes, they are the same thing but wear different hats.

Quite. He was our greatest asset in exposing this entire mess to public attention. We probably couldn't have done it without him and his "outrage" piece.

Ohh, totally. If he had never written that the papers would never have had any interest in talking about it, and you would have all been at a loss. A few blog posts would not have got any response from him, I believe. His current PR person should be sacked immediately.

[fredbear]

...
If you want someone to write a subjective piece, you need a PR person (actually, Richard does too), and not a journalist. Yes, they are the same thing but wear different hats.

Quite. He was our greatest asset in exposing this entire mess to public attention. We probably couldn't have done it without him and his "outrage" piece.

Ohh, totally. If he had never written that the papers would never have had any interest in talking about it, and you would have all been at a loss. A few blog posts would not have got any response from him, I believe. His current PR person should be sacked immediately.

his "current" pr person? you mean the one he furiously consulted prior to that apology?