First reaction by Richard Dawkins.

[natselrox]

Seeing that he hasn't read it yet...





Sorry, folks!

HAHAHAHA I love how you edited it so you just appear to be a complete nutter.

I AM a complete nutter. But I still think Josh is an invertebrate.

[natselrox]

Seeing that he hasn't read it yet...





Sorry, folks!

HAHAHAHA I love how you edited it so you just appear to be a complete nutter.

don't worry natselrox. what was acceptable yesterday is so not acceptable today. it's evolution. it just tripped you up. don't think anyone can really cast stones.

[klr]

Seeing that he hasn't read it yet...





Sorry, folks!

He may have already gotten an email notification containing the original subject heading. Hopefully he will have had this feature turned off though.

[virphen]

Shut up nats, and go and comment on the Sachin thread.

[ozewiezeloose]

Roxy,

You should've linked to Peter's blog in the subject line, if you ask me.

S.

[natselrox]

Seeing that he hasn't read it yet...





Sorry, folks!

He may have already gotten an email notification containing the original subject heading. Hopefully he will have had this feature turned off though.

What's that saying? "Never send a mail when you're really angry at someone?". Lesson learnt.

Back to irrationality! Fuck you, Josh!

[tnjrp]

Yep, that've been fairly weird too, but at least somewhat constructive at the same time

[natselrox]

Shut up nats, and go and comment on the Sachin thread.

There is a Sachin thread???? Where? Where?

[virphen]

Shut up nats, and go and comment on the Sachin thread.

There is a Sachin thread???? Where? Where?

Here
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9163
It's still just a baby though

[Mr.Samsa]

I'm struggling to understand what facts our troubled member here is confusing with opinion. Is it:

1) That the thread in Tech Support was the reason Josh gave for freezing the forum? This seems hardly debatable since Josh said so.

2) That the vitriol started AFTER the closing of the forum? Again, this is not debatable as the original tech support thread is saved online and anyone can read through it to see that there were no untoward comments made about Josh.

3) That the admins limited the PM feature? Again, not debatable since those two are the only ones left and the PM feature has been altered..

4) That Josh and Andrew went through the moderator logs deleting evidence of their actions? Not debatable again as this was witnessed by a number of mods.

5) That the members deleted along with their posts were done so simply because they disagreed with Josh's decision and not because they broke any rule? Again, this is all evidenced in the tech support thread and the evidence that is left on the forum as well as the events that were observed as it was happening.

6) That the admin installed a rickroll into the forum software? Well it's possible that a very clever, highly resourceful hacker did it, so I admit there is some speculation there. However, you'd imagine that such a talented hacker would use their skills to get important details from Dawkins' accounts, from the store there, from the foundations bank details etc. So it seems unlikely that it was a hacker, which leaves only Josh.

7) That Josh didn't like the forum and had no input whatsoever into it's growth or development? Again, this is a simple fact of history. Josh made it explicitly clear that he hated the place, he never posted there, and his only contributions were to piss off the Rationalia group a year ago and then to turn off the search function 8 months ago.

I have seen some people speculate about why Josh may have taken the actions he did, and of course only inferences can be made there. However, the basic bullet points that have been repeated across forums with the timeline of events are all basic facts of the situation with numerous lines of evidence backing them up - saved by those of us who were there witnessing the events unfolding.

[Ilovelucy]

It's easy to jump on natselrox, but in reality Dawkins won't read his pm.

As I understand it, the former mods and doubtless many concerned members sent reasoned and polite pms to Richard and the admin's response was to delete these people and their entire post count, regardless of the nature of the pm which most likely would never have been read by anyone, admins included, just deleted. So in reality it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.

EDIT: See!

As far as I can infer from timings and IP addresses in the admin centre, the deletions were probably implemented by Chalkey and someone has since told him to stop. They were in response to many things, but not for messaging Richard. From what I can infer the messages were sent and opened, but not replied to.

[Harmless Eccentric]

It's unfortunate that you can't go look for yourself, and see exactly how people reacted to the announcement of the change.

Considering how useful that thread would be, it's a shame that it has been deleted. I didn't see it all the way to the end, but when I was looking at it, it was more 'confused' than 'vitriolic.'

I wonder why it was deleted? I mean, if the whole forum was read-only, anyway, why bother?

And I wonder why Dawkins quoted vitriol from here, instead of things that were said there? Does Dawkins think that was what was in the deleted thread? If he does, then Josh has intentionally misled him. Does Dawkins think that vitriol AFTER the shutdown justifies the shutdown? I guess I can see that, in a 'see what kind of people they are?' sort of way, but that isn't what his message seems to say. It really sounds like he thinks the nasty quotes are things that caused the shutdown.

And if Dawkins read here enough to see the vitriol, didn't he also see the things that people were vitriolic about- the deletion of content, and the contempt for volunteers?

Sure, it's just an internet forum. But in general, charitable foundations that treat their volunteers with contempt sometimes find themselves without volunteers.

[misanthropic_clown]

I think I'll try anyway:

Dear Richard,

As a relative newcomer I must admit I do not feel particularly put out or personally offended by your decision to make a transition away from the present forum format. In the forums I have enjoyed reading the writings of greater minds that my own which have greatly increased my understanding about certain religious and scientific topics, and I have enjoyed contributing my own insight into my former Mormon faith to those who had questions to ask. I would say the highlight of my time here was when several users gave kind words of encouragement to help me gather up the courage to express my disbelief to my bishop and begin to make a real transition away from my childhood religion. These opportunities were in some respects courtesy of you and your staff, and I am grateful for them. Thank you.

However, in many other respects these experiences were also courtesy of several volunteers and users who worked hard to maintain the forum environment. Several of these volunteers and notable contributors are upset by the way the transition has been managed, which has resulted in the loss of many brilliant insights and lessons in science and critical thinking. I would like to kindly ask that you do what you can to restore these posts to allow them to be retained by their authors for future use so that the fruits of their efforts need not be so short lived.

Perhaps think of it this way - I am sure you would be upset and irate if all trace of "The Ancestor's Tale" were swept off the face of the earth. For some users, the cumulative contributions would dwarf that work. Please take that into consideration and do what can be done to make sure nothing is lost. There are many people who would deeply appreciate the effort.

Thanks,

misanthropic_clown

[Daan]

And this guy is supposed to be the most rational person on the planet?

If so, humanity is well and truly FUCKED.

You can still sign up for the BNP. Very bad joke, i know.

[ED209]

It's easy to jump on natselrox, but in reality Dawkins won't read his pm.

As I understand it, the former mods and doubtless many concerned members sent reasoned and polite pms to Richard and the admin's response was to delete these people and their entire post count, regardless of the nature of the pm which most likely would never have been read by anyone, admins included, just deleted. So in reality it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.

EDIT: See!

As far as I can infer from timings and IP addresses in the admin centre, the deletions were probably implemented by Chalkey and someone has since told him to stop. They were in response to many things, but not for messaging Richard. From what I can infer the messages were sent and opened, but not replied to.

Cool, thanks for the correction. I'll expunge my earlier post