Perhaps they read this and panicked -lordpasternack wrote:As I already said in another thread - staff expressly said that they'd respond to illegal stuff, porn, and stuff potentially damaging to RD's reputation.z8000783 wrote: I guess the fact that the mods resigned made them poo their pants and shut down the forum early.
John
JohnTopsy wrote:No answer to the above. Staff have decided that we will no longer be answering general emails or responding to reports.
New thread for this I think ...InYourFaceNewYorker wrote:Richard apologized and cleared things up. Didn't I tell you that I thought this would happen? Now let's put this behind us: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5165
Julie
Good idea. A new thread to discuss this is here. Will anyone who wants to post about Richard Dawkins's announcement please do so in the new thread and this one can remain for other discussions.klr wrote:Richard Dawkins seems to spend a lot of time reading PMs back at RD.net. It's a fair bet that he's reading at least some of them carefully, and not just deleting left, right and centre, as has been feared.
WOW! Talk about being preempted:
New thread for this I think ...InYourFaceNewYorker wrote:Richard apologized and cleared things up. Didn't I tell you that I thought this would happen? Now let's put this behind us: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5165
Julie
Seth wrote:Fuck that, I like opening Pandora's box and shoving my tool inside it
Very well said Barry!The real problem? Having established that religious denominations are used as mere labels, and having rather impatiently conceded that economic and political conflicts lie at the heart of the problems in Northern Ireland, Dawkins desperately tries to shoehorn his pet peeve into the equation. The ‘real problem’ it appears, is that the occupying power professes allegiance to a different branch of Christianity than most of the occupied population! And the professor seems to believe that ditching the words ‘Nationalist’ and ‘Loyalist’ – which at least have some purchase on the political and material realities of the Northern Ireland conflict – and replacing them with ‘Catholic’ and ‘Protestant’ would be less euphemistic. It is hard to know where to begin unpicking this tripe, but a quick glance at the history books might have helped the professor. The Presbyterian affiliations of Wolfe Tone might have given Dawkins pause for thought, or the socialist convictions of James Connolly. But hey, ho, what does historical veracity matter when the professor’s freedom to pontificate is at stake.
No, but there are other perfectly valid reasons for doing that.tortouse wrote:...if someone is an atheist, a non-believer, an agnostic etc. it doesn't follow that they have to make eliminating religion their goal or purpose...
[Qi]Actually, the whole thing about goldfish having a 7 second memory is just one of those baseless urban myths.[/Qi]lordpasternack wrote:I'm trying to get a thread together, but it will probably still be too long for your goldfish-esque attention span.
What was that you just said?Horwood Beer-Master wrote:[Qi]Actually, the whole thing about goldfish having a 7 second memory is just one of those baseless urban myths.[/Qi]lordpasternack wrote:I'm trying to get a thread together, but it will probably still be too long for your goldfish-esque attention span.
Thank you JamesJimC wrote:Actually, as an ancient member, may I correct you on the term "Dawks". It was invented (possibly by MCJ) as a lighthearted term for members who loved the forum atmosphere without being into the sciencey stuff... Nothing to do with an RD fan club, at least in its inception...hackenslash wrote:I don't think there were as many 'Dawks' as you might think. Sure, many of us gathered on his forum, but a good deal of that was simply that that was where the fundies came. Then making friends, etc. My experience was that very few of the regulars actually vaunted him to that degree.
I agree about NI, by the way. The history of that goes a lot deeper than simple sectarianism, and most of the commentators who think it did ignore many hundreds of years history.
. I dunno, the ignorance of some people ... 
klr wrote:What was that you just said?Horwood Beer-Master wrote:[Qi]Actually, the whole thing about goldfish having a 7 second memory is just one of those baseless urban myths.[/Qi]lordpasternack wrote:I'm trying to get a thread together, but it will probably still be too long for your goldfish-esque attention span.
Meh, never mind. Oh, look: A bright shiny object.
I wish it was an abbreviation for Dawkinicans. Then you could line up against the Dominicans - "Hounds of Dawkins" v "Hounds of God". Grudge matchJimC wrote:Actually, as an ancient member, may I correct you on the term "Dawks". It was invented (possibly by MCJ) as a lighthearted term for members who loved the forum atmosphere without being into the sciencey stuff... Nothing to do with an RD fan club, at least in its inception...hackenslash wrote:I don't think there were as many 'Dawks' as you might think. Sure, many of us gathered on his forum, but a good deal of that was simply that that was where the fundies came. Then making friends, etc. My experience was that very few of the regulars actually vaunted him to that degree.
I agree about NI, by the way. The history of that goes a lot deeper than simple sectarianism, and most of the commentators who think it did ignore many hundreds of years history.
Nope, we were just dorks on the dawkins site.... seemed natural that we'd be called that. I think DP or CJ might have come up with it.johnawlock wrote:I wish it was an abbreviation for Dawkinicans. Then you could line up against the Dominicans - "Hounds of Dawkins" v "Hounds of God". Grudge matchJimC wrote:Actually, as an ancient member, may I correct you on the term "Dawks". It was invented (possibly by MCJ) as a lighthearted term for members who loved the forum atmosphere without being into the sciencey stuff... Nothing to do with an RD fan club, at least in its inception...hackenslash wrote:I don't think there were as many 'Dawks' as you might think. Sure, many of us gathered on his forum, but a good deal of that was simply that that was where the fundies came. Then making friends, etc. My experience was that very few of the regulars actually vaunted him to that degree.
I agree about NI, by the way. The history of that goes a lot deeper than simple sectarianism, and most of the commentators who think it did ignore many hundreds of years history.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
