RD.net to be re-revamped!

[Hermit]

Please let me know if you ever have any input regarding the actual substance of what I've argued.

I couldn't give a flying fuck about a single word you have to say on the issue. You're holding onto a grudge, stemming from a web forum that nobody gives a fuck about any more. And your reason for re-igniting your vendetta is the word of someone who told you what RD thinks of you. Seriously, there are times when I wish that people who call themselves skeptics would stop for a moment and apply that skepticism to their own belief-structure. Perhaps that woman was lying? Radical thought, I know, and one that might intrude on your go-nowhere campaign against someone whose absence would make the world a much poorer place.

Input regarding the actual substance of what you've argued? Not gonna happen.

Oh, let me guess, Hermit has some sort of long-standing relationship with LP?

Did I win a goldfish?

Not even a tadpole.

[lordpasternack]

Oh, let me guess, Hermit has some sort of long-standing relationship with LP?

No.

But it's nice that you're interested in the possible conflict of interest here, but not where RD and his mistress(es) are concerned.

The woman who claims to have had a sexual relationship with RD and then stirred the shit with LP. We know she is honest... because?

She showed me emails. And Richard didn't deny it - didn't turn around and say that he had no clue what I was talking about, or that he never had that woman in an Oxford hotel as I was claiming. Indeed in response to my email challenging him about the incident, he confessed to having had the current Executive Director of RDFRS as his mistress. That was some indirect confirmation of the truth content of the email to which he was responding.

All I see is the academia equivalent of WAGs and WAG-wannabes having a bitch-fest over someone who didn't want to sleep with them. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned?

Well that's a shame - that you don't see what Hermit and Calilasseia see plainly - of the manifest incompetence, negligence and possible malfeasance within RDFRS.

Never mind me... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive

[DaveDodo007]

Just did a google search for Richard Dawkins' mistresses.

First was uncommondescent.

Second was LP derailing Greta Christina's blog about Edwina Rogers. My rule of thumb is when Greta is being the voice of reason then step away from the ledge.

Third was wintery fuckwit knobhead licking his own balls or something.

Fourth was ratskep I haven't read that yet.

Fifth was this thread. I don't want to use the word obsession yet but the insults you are getting in this thread alone are nothing to what you will get if this hits the MSM. My heart felt advice is to forget about it for at the very least a couple of weeks. Use the time to enjoy any pastime you like and try to reflect on your motives for this. If after that you still feel strongly about the way the RDF is run then go for it and be prepared for the slings and arrows of some shakespearian guff.

[Rum]

I see that the mods have placed a disclaimer in the first post on this thread. I guess it covers any concerns I may have had.

[JimC]

I see that the mods have placed a disclaimer in the first post on this thread. I guess it covers any concerns I may have had.

[Bella Fortuna]

Fifth was this thread. I don't want to use the word obsession yet but the insults you are getting in this thread alone are nothing to what you will get if this hits the MSM. My heart felt advice is to forget about it for at the very least a couple of weeks. Use the time to enjoy any pastime you like and try to reflect on your motives for this. If after that you still feel strongly about the way the RDF is run then go for it and be prepared for the slings and arrows of some shakespearian guff.

None of this is advice that hasn't been offered time and again as this issue has been percolating for a year or more now.

[Rum]

The obvious way forward would be to send any evidence one has to the charities commission, the inland revenue or even the police and then wash ones hands if the whole thing and move on. The fact that this hasn't happened will no doubt be met with some sort of justification, but that is what someone wishing simply for some sort of 'justice' would do in my view.

[JimC]

I think all the evidence should be turned over to A+...

I'm sure they'll sort it out...

[Hermit]

I see that the mods have placed a disclaimer in the first post on this thread. I guess it covers any concerns I may have had.

Firstly, that disclaimer would be more fittingly placed in a section dealing with forum policy in general. Secondly, I do not see the need to name individual forum members, but if that seems necessary, and if it is deemed necessary to name them by their real name rather than their alias, would you please get the spelling right? Thirdly, would the perpetrator of this comment please own up to it in the "Change Control" thread, and explain by what sort of discussion a consensus was reached for this comment?

[Rum]

I agree about the name. Should be a user name in my opinion, however if it is a mod consensus surely that is enough?

[JimC]

I agree about the name. Should be a user name in my opinion, however if it is a mod consensus surely that is enough?

There was definitely consensus.

I think the actual name is required for legal reasons...

And I thought we got the spelling right...

[Robert_S]

I agree about the name. Should be a user name in my opinion, however if it is a mod consensus surely that is enough?

There was definitely consensus.

I think the actual name is required for legal reasons...

And I thought we got the spelling right...

I don't know about the name being needed. If a more knowledgeable person could set us straight, that would be helpful.

[JimC]

I agree about the name. Should be a user name in my opinion, however if it is a mod consensus surely that is enough?

There was definitely consensus.

I think the actual name is required for legal reasons...

And I thought we got the spelling right...

I don't know about the name being needed. If a more knowledgeable person could set us straight, that would be helpful.

Anyway, the name is not exactly a state secret...

[Robert_S]

I agree about the name. Should be a user name in my opinion, however if it is a mod consensus surely that is enough?

There was definitely consensus.

I think the actual name is required for legal reasons...

And I thought we got the spelling right...

I don't know about the name being needed. If a more knowledgeable person could set us straight, that would be helpful.

Anyway, the name is not exactly a state secret...

That's a good point, but we should restrict it to the minimum needed to cover the forum's ass I think.

[pErvinalia]

wouldn't it be better to have a general disclaimer in the rules or somewhere stating something like "the opinions expressed on this site are not neccessarily the opinions of the site owners/management". And perhaps you could then put a link to that in the start of this thread as an extra reminder.