RD.net to be re-revamped!

[Coito ergo sum]

This is a general reminder for everyone to play nice and avoid personal attacks as per our rules.

Wow. I object to that. Everyone? It was Red Celt initiating stuff, and LordP at most responded to being attacked.

Wrong response. Wrong message.

[Bella Fortuna]

That was a general reminder as is not unusual when more than one person breaches the rules at one time. Both RC & LP engaged in personal attacks, if you're looking for names named.

[Thinking Aloud]

This is a general reminder for everyone to play nice and avoid personal attacks as per our rules.

Wow. I object to that. Everyone? It was Red Celt initiating stuff, and LordP at most responded to being attacked.

Wrong response. Wrong message.

I don't mind being reminded.

[John_fi_Skye]

I don't envy football referees. I don't envy mods.

[Svartalf]

Oh; Hades, you Crazed Chimera you.

[Red Celt]

This is a general reminder for everyone to play nice and avoid personal attacks as per our rules.

Wow. I object to that. Everyone? It was Red Celt initiating stuff, and LordP at most responded to being attacked.

Wrong response. Wrong message.

Really? Initiated by me? LP was attacking RD. But, hey... it's OK to do personal attacks on people who aren't forum members. Tell him to sign up, then LP will have one less place to spout her nonsense.

"Yep, Richard, could you come along and create an account on Rationalia.com"

"What's that?"

"It's a place for atheists. You know... those people whose lives have been made easier due to your help in making atheism a mainstream idealogy."

"Oh, erm... why would I want to do that?"

"Well, because some of those atheists (who you helped) are being ungrateful wankstains on the bedsheet of humanity... and are, y'know, having a pop at you."

"Uhm... no thanks. Life is too short"

[Coito ergo sum]

That was a general reminder as is not unusual when more than one person breaches the rules at one time. Both RC & LP engaged in personal attacks, if you're looking for names named.

Sure -- she called him a blowhard in response to him calling her a "demented harpy" -- but, it is absolutely clear who the initiator is. I respect the decision, but I just want to be on record as, again, disagreeing with treating those who initiate confrontations no worse than those who respond to them. LP should not have responded. But, the response only came because Red Celt - not for the first time - initiated personal attacks.

It's fine to warn everyone to play nice. But, whoever initiates the melee ought to be given an extra slap. If people would refrain from that initial verbal smack in the face, people would not feel compelled to defend themselves.

[hadespussercats]

Oh; Hades, you Crazed Chimera you.

Thanks, Svarty!

[Coito ergo sum]

This is a general reminder for everyone to play nice and avoid personal attacks as per our rules.

Wow. I object to that. Everyone? It was Red Celt initiating stuff, and LordP at most responded to being attacked.

Wrong response. Wrong message.

I don't mind being reminded.

I don't either. But the aggressor -- the initiator -- should receive heightened attention. It is important to address the person who starts shit. They're worse than people who respond in self-defense to shit started by another.

[Coito ergo sum]

This is a general reminder for everyone to play nice and avoid personal attacks as per our rules.

Wow. I object to that. Everyone? It was Red Celt initiating stuff, and LordP at most responded to being attacked.

Wrong response. Wrong message.

Really? Initiated by me? LP was attacking RD. But, hey... it's OK to do personal attacks on people who aren't forum members.

Yes, we've been through that before. According to the forum rules here, attacking non-forum members is, in fact, o.k. Like if one calls Kent Hovind a lying Creationist scumbag.

So, yes, initiated by you. You came to the defense of a non-member by personally attacking a member. She responded to you.

[Red Celt]

That was a general reminder as is not unusual when more than one person breaches the rules at one time. Both RC & LP engaged in personal attacks, if you're looking for names named.

Sure -- she called him a blowhard in response to him calling her a "demented harpy" -- but, it is absolutely clear who the initiator is. I respect the decision, but I just want to be on record as, again, disagreeing with treating those who initiate confrontations no worse than those who respond to them. LP should not have responded. But, the response only came because Red Celt - not for the first time - initiated personal attacks.

It's fine to warn everyone to play nice. But, whoever initiates the melee ought to be given an extra slap. If people would refrain from that initial verbal smack in the face, people would not feel compelled to defend themselves.

I love how you make that appeal when every other time I've gone down that route, it has been a defensive response that has caused it. The same is true here... except that the original person being attacked isn't a member.

So, thanks for defending me, CES. Even if unintentionally.

[Coito ergo sum]

That was a general reminder as is not unusual when more than one person breaches the rules at one time. Both RC & LP engaged in personal attacks, if you're looking for names named.

Sure -- she called him a blowhard in response to him calling her a "demented harpy" -- but, it is absolutely clear who the initiator is. I respect the decision, but I just want to be on record as, again, disagreeing with treating those who initiate confrontations no worse than those who respond to them. LP should not have responded. But, the response only came because Red Celt - not for the first time - initiated personal attacks.

It's fine to warn everyone to play nice. But, whoever initiates the melee ought to be given an extra slap. If people would refrain from that initial verbal smack in the face, people would not feel compelled to defend themselves.

I love how you make that appeal when every other time I've gone down that route, it has been a defensive response that has caused it. The same is true here... except that the original person being attacked isn't a member.

So, thanks for defending me, CES. Even if unintentionally.

It's not against the rules for anyone to personally attack a non-member, and it's not even apparent that LordP "attacked" a non-member. She's "critical" of a non-member for sure. But, other than saying he had poor taste and was naive, what was her "personal attack" on Dawkins.

I did not defend you at all. EVEN IF she did attack Dawkins, that is not against the rules.

YOUR attack on her was against the rules, and you started the shit with her.

[Calilasseia]

If we can get back on track here ...

Given that [1] RD has been pretty vigorous in tackling supernaturalist absurdities and malfeasance, and [2] this has led to him acquiring a good number of enemies, several of whom, as I've already stated, are willing to fight dirty, in some cases for entirely mercenary reasons (namely, to keep the cash flowing from the rubes to prop up their large houses and car collections), I would have thought that these two facts should have been most apparent to RD himself, and as a corollary, that he might have exercised a little more due care and attention, with respect to ensuring that his organisation was as free as humanly possible from the failings covered here.

That he appears not to have exercised said due care and attention, should be a fairly large red flag here. Particularly given that [3], as I've already stated, any flak RD attracts as a result of failing to apply due diligence in this matter, could very well impact very badly upon people wholly unconnected with the affair. Apart from the disillusionment that would arise amongst those people I've cited in past posts, who looked to RD to provide both a voice for their own concerns, and a counter-example to the familiar and duplicitous apologetic smear we see being erected all too frequently, to the effect that failure to treat mythology as fact purportedly equals some sort of ethical deficiency, there's another issue at stake here. Namely, that in the USA, anti-atheist hatred (and yes, I chose the word 'hatred' deliberately, because there is evidence to support the charge) is of a particularly febrile, venomous nature, and some of the propagandists for fundamentalist lunacy in particular, have no qualms about launching into Streicher-esque tirades against those who happen not to conform to their delusional fantasies. If anyone is in any doubt about what might happen if some of these people succeed in acquiring real power, look up "Dominionism", which constitutes a supremely toxic mix of rampant prosperity theology allied to a fetishistic attachment to the most revolting strictures of Leviticus. Noting these pertinent facts, and being aware of the political dimension applicable here, I would respectfully suggest, does not constitute being an "academic WAG".

[Red Celt]

It's not against the rules for anyone to personally attack a non-member, and it's not even apparent that LordP "attacked" a non-member. She's "critical" of a non-member for sure. But, other than saying he had poor taste and was naive, what was her "personal attack" on Dawkins.

I did not defend you at all. EVEN IF she did attack Dawkins, that is not against the rules.

YOUR attack on her was against the rules, and you started the shit with her.

Again. Thanks.

[tattuchu]