First reaction by Richard Dawkins.

[QuarkyGideon]

He's missed the point entirely. What about the moderators Richard?! :pissed:

Although to be honest he is right about the name calling etc. I thought we'd have some discussion and action that meant something; but I didn't expect the string of abuse to come from people.

I support the cause though.

[Bella Fortuna]

Just PM'd Richard using a bit of what I've posted here (*gulp* first time ever, and no doubt the last! )

With all due respect, Mr. Dawkins, to dissect the millions of words on the subject at Rationalia and draw out only those obviously angry ones is illustrative of mining for vitriol which will support a predetermined entrenchment, and hardly worthy of you.

People need to vent - they feel betrayed personally and ire on behalf of the treatment of others they respect. I'd urge a look beyond the nasty first gut-reaction into the real crux of the frustration expressed. Josh has behaved duplicitously with dictatorial grandeur.

But then - why pay attention to me... I was one of the expendable group back in 2008....

Disappointedly (and expecting my posts now to be deleted as has been happening to anyone who contacts you),

Bella.

[Bella Fortuna]

Some venting after something like this is natural. But to dissect the millions of words on the subject here and draw out only those obviously angry ones is illustrative of mining for vitriol which will support a predetermined entrenchment.

I love it when you talk Cali to me.

Let's take a look at this, shall we? *zzzzzzip*

[skintbuthappy]

well i never thought i'd feel like a petulant teenager before a bullying games teacher again.

you are quite right bella he is deflecting the real issues by making himself the victim. yes those are abusive, knee jerk and in some cases ignorant insults and they don't help. but to use them to kick and berate a whole community legitimately concerned by the unreasonable behaviour of 3 people is cheap.

skintbuthappy has posted an article written last year by rd in "the edge" which predicts this rd's post.

Lazy Skint, last behind the eight-ball again.

It's here, fredbear. Sorry

[Strontium Dog]

I have to say, I don't know what everyone is pissed off about, other than the fact that all this happened suddenly. I think that that's what set some people off - the fact that this sort of was sprung on the forum without a real clear statement of what's going to happen and when. Then a bunch of people flew into a rage, probably boiling over from being upset at Timonen for not showing them what they thought was due respect. And, then some members of RDF.net forum seem to have really gone over the line with the vitriol, as quoted by Dawkins.

ALL of those quotes come from this forum - AFTER the RD.net forum had been closed.

They are most certainly NOT a response to the letter from Josh that Dawkins quotes - they are a response to Josh's criminal vandalism and Stalinesque behaviour.

[Feck]

Yes If I had a forum I would expect abuse If I treated volunteers like shit closed it down and lied about it all .

At least the founder of this Forum has more scruples .

[ficklefiend]

My post was specifically directed at one piece of text, I didn't even name anyone.

When someone tells me they know that change can be frightening in order to at both times shut me up and patronise me, I get the sudden urge to ram a fistful of nails down their throat.

I mean, clearly it was about whoever wrote that line, but it was a statement that I would make of any patronising comment, about anyone. I don't think I've ever actually directly insulted Josh.. it's not really my style.

[num1cubfn]

I didn't think I'd see the day when Dawkins quote mines from thousands of his own forum members to only quote the worst 0.2% of the posts on the issue. I'm extremely disappointed by his apparant lack of sense.

[natselrox]

Does Dawkins really want to play this with the few of us? "Be careful what you wish for."

[normal]

Blaming "the internet culture that had developed" is a very slippery way of dealing with the more serious matter of how people were treated. I can see how this would look like an easy way around that particular pickle.

[Coito ergo sum]

The thing is - put yourself in Richard Dawkins, PHD's position.

What would his reaction to grown men and women feeling personally insulted and hurt because of a change in the forum?

From his perspective, even if he shut the whole thing down without a word, it likely would not be something he would expect adults to fly in rages about.

I think most of us who posted on RDF were taken by surprise. I know I was. I tried to sign on, and all of a sudden I had a message in my box from a moderator alluding to something happening with the site and the moderators being axed. Then I clicked around and found the announcement and some comments that made it to the site before it was locked. I still had no idea what happened really. But, I PM'd back the moderator who PM'd me and just asked "what happened?" and I did not get a response.

However, it never occurred to me to send vitriolic emails yelling and namecalling. I don't think it occurred to most of us.

This website offers the same functionality as RDF and the same ability to start topics. Anyone can go to RDF and cut and past the threads they like and start them up here.

What's the difference, really? I see so many of the same folks that were at RDF here that the community seems to be largely intact.

Here's what I suggest - that a petition be signed by any RDF members that would like to do so that basically expresses strong support for Dawkins, and describes the kind of things we liked about the forum as it was, and then asks RDF to please include as much of that functionality as they can in whatever improvements they make. That would be the proper way to handle this, given that none of us ever paid a subscription fee to post the gobs of material we posted there.

[num1cubfn]

The forum started going down hill when you joined, "living easy". The collective level of stupidty in your posts apparantly got into the forums themselves, infected Josh, and then got transmitted to Dawkins.

[Flora]

I have to say, I don't know what everyone is pissed off about, other than the fact that all this happened suddenly. I think that that's what set some people off - the fact that this sort of was sprung on the forum without a real clear statement of what's going to happen and when. Then a bunch of people flew into a rage, probably boiling over from being upset at Timonen for not showing them what they thought was due respect. And, then some members of RDF.net forum seem to have really gone over the line with the vitriol, as quoted by Dawkins.

ALL of those quotes come from this forum - AFTER the RD.net forum had been closed.

They are most certainly NOT a response to the letter from Josh that Dawkins quotes - they are a response to Josh's criminal vandalism and Stalinesque behaviour.

That's what I hope someone can prove with evidence via linked sources. Please do this if you can because Richard has been grossly misled.

[Heresiarch]

Just PM'd Richard using a bit of what I've posted here (*gulp* first time ever, and no doubt the last! )

You should have recommended that he added his letter to the forum to his power point presentation the next time he does his talk on quote mining.

[Surendra Darathy]

I mean, really folks...was that necessary? If you were paying for a website forum and suddenly a bunch a people started railing at you and threatening you, and cursing at you, would you tolerate it?

Well, that's the real fucking question, isn't it? Is saying something anonymous and chickenshit on-line the same thing as saying it with a byline? No, I don't fucking think so.

They weren't railing at him in his own forum, were they? The whole point of not being anonymous is that you have to watch your mouth, since libel and slander still apply to those who are not anonymous. After all, it's still permitted to defame someone in graffiti on an anonymous wall, as long as you don't get caught for defacing public property.