Times Online- Richard Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans

[Chauncey Gardner]

I maybe wrong...but are these times links fake?

I was searching for Ruth Gledhills column in the REAL times newspaper online and couldn't find that supposed article about the dawkins thing.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sitese ... tionId=736


in fact the most recent times article related to dawkins was 19th feb.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sitese ... tionId=674

any web gurus here know how to check if the earlier links are legit?

[Chauncey Gardner]

answering my own question but...

I found Gledhills blog on typepad...
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/

but the dawkins blog entry isn't appearing in the TIMES newspaper at all.

more shit stirring against Richard? or am I missing something?

[SnowLeopard]

http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/

[Millefleur]

I maybe wrong...but are these times links fake?

I was searching for Ruth Gledhills column in the REAL times newspaper online and couldn't find that supposed article about the dawkins thing.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sitese ... tionId=736


in fact the most recent times article related to dawkins was 19th feb.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sitese ... tionId=674

any web gurus here know how to check if the earlier links are legit?

I've no idea, but its on the Times homepage as 'Dawkins attacked.. by atheists'.

[Tortured_Genius]

Go to Times online.

Click "comments" tab

Click "blogs" tab

click "Articles of Faith" header down the page

The blogs are held on a seperate partition, it's likely links and searches aren't updated immediately.

[Chauncey Gardner]

http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/

that's a link to typepad.com it's not a link to the times newspaper or The TIMES ONLINE.

the most recent article about Richard i s dated 19th feb 2010 on THE TIMES ONLINE

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sitese ... tionId=679

[Chauncey Gardner]

Go to Times online.

Click "comments" tab

Click "blogs" tab

click "Articles of Faith" header down the page

The blogs are held on a seperate partition, it's likely links and searches aren't updated immediately.

Perhaps it maybe a search engine thing, but, as it stands, none of the stories mentioned in this thread are on the TIMES ONLINE. they are in the private blogs of various (freelance) columnists on typepad.com who sometimes contribute to the main newspaper.

[Chauncey Gardner]

I maybe wrong...but are these times links fake?

I was searching for Ruth Gledhills column in the REAL times newspaper online and couldn't find that supposed article about the dawkins thing.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sitese ... tionId=736


in fact the most recent times article related to dawkins was 19th feb.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sitese ... tionId=674

any web gurus here know how to check if the earlier links are legit?

I've no idea, but its on the Times homepage as 'Dawkins attacked.. by atheists'.

no it's not. I';ve checked the UK edition and int. edition and various sections like science.

do you really just WANT it to be on the front page so people can stir up some more shit against Richard?

[Mazille]

Having just read the article and the comments I think it is quite telling that all the comments are saying the same thing, i.e. "No, Richard has got it wrong!" And then the links to the blogs.

So far no-one is actually posting 'evidence' that Richard has got it right. Which of course would be hard to do as there is no evidence for that.

I know that many members of RD.net were reluctant for this to hit the news, but I'm quietly (or I guess not so quietly, as I'm writing about it here ) feeling that justice is being served.

they're not posting to 'evidence' Nora. They're pointing to hearsay from people who don't know the full facts. They're just stringing together various speculations to draw a conclusion that satisfies their anger.

It's called MOB RULE.

This is getting rather tiresome, mate.

[The Curious Squid]

At the end of the day, a newspaper will always prefer the word of the most famous atheist in the world over a bunch of internet nobodies. Sorry, but that is how it goes; just how Dawkins will prefer the word of his own personal friend above a group of people he sees as little more than spoilt brats.

Funny thing Matt, I was wondering if you'd show up. I still remember your attitude and comments from a year ago, you've certainly changed your tune now.

[Thinking Aloud]

At the end of the day, a newspaper will always prefer the word of the most famous atheist in the world over a bunch of internet nobodies. Sorry, but that is how it goes; just how Dawkins will prefer the word of his own personal friend above a group of people he sees as little more than spoilt brats.

Funny thing Matt, I was wondering if you'd show up. I still remember your attitude and comments from a year ago, you've certainly changed your tune now.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 10#p347410

[Thinking Aloud]

do you really just WANT it to be on the front page so people can stir up some more shit against Richard?

Front page of the damned website. I don't know if that's evidence enough for you.

Picture 2.png

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/

I've even saved it as a webarchive, just in case it changes.

[klr]

do you really just WANT it to be on the front page so people can stir up some more shit against Richard?

Front page of the damned website. I don't know if that's evidence enough for you.

Picture 2.png

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/

I've even saved it as a webarchive, just in case it changes.

But ... has Bridge let England down?

Seriously, seeing as that was big news on Sky News this morning, can we be far behind?

[Bella Fortuna]

[Matt H]

At the end of the day, a newspaper will always prefer the word of the most famous atheist in the world over a bunch of internet nobodies. Sorry, but that is how it goes; just how Dawkins will prefer the word of his own personal friend above a group of people he sees as little more than spoilt brats.

Funny thing Matt, I was wondering if you'd show up. I still remember your attitude and comments from a year ago, you've certainly changed your tune now.

I'd like to apologise again for my comments last year. I went and did a Richard Dawkins by tarring you all with the same brush; it was uncalled for. I shouldn't have acted so sanctimonuous and superior to everyone. You all saw this coming, so you were one up on me.