RD.net to be re-revamped!

[Calilasseia]

*cough*

I think this is all one great big fucking mess, and Richard would have done far better to try to embrace me rather than trying to filter me out - but I WOULD say that, wouldn't I?

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 60#p918839

*ahem*

...who needs to continue to worry about credibility once you become Richard's protégé, anyway. It's not like he bothers to engage his critical faculties once you reach a certain level of Golden Child in his eyes... And why do we need to worry about being accountable to anyone but ourselves anyway, since it's OUR site? If we want to be hubristic wankers and sap the site slowly from the inside, and appear to go out of our way to piss a lot of people off in the process, that's our privilege, isn't it?

And I, Richard Dawkins, want a site more dedicated to Reason and Science, even though I hardly fucking looked at the science and reason-themed sections of the old site - and even though it's going to take that upstart little bastard lordpasternack to point out that the revamped site has as much true reason and science content as a Tesco Value sausage roll has meat content, before I actually notice this small triviality - and make some effort to try to fix it - by posting mailing-list fodder science news. But that's rhetoric for you - that's not living up to your own values for you - that's showing that even incredibly intelligent minds can be disgracefully stupid, insincere and short-sighted, for you.

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 27#p919027

Great minds think alike and all that.

Love the bit about "golden child" status. You should copyright that one.

[Calilasseia]

He spoke English in a honeyed voice of the best Old Etonian blend. It was easy to imagine with what lordly indifference he had brushed off his blunders in the First World War. He must have lived in a magic circle. Even after his vanity and ignorance had damaged Germany in the eyes of the world, he was still received by the Kaiser to give his views on submarine warfare. Unfortunately, he was 'hardly allowed to get a word in' [comment from von Papen's memoirs].

...

The statement which he made to me that afternoon was exquisite.

"I cannot understand why I find myself in this position, Herr Major".

"Why not read the indictment and you will see."

Ahehehe...

For the record - I did once have sex with an old Oxonian lecture (who wasn't Dawkins) - which was in equal parts endearing and embarrassing... Naive attempts at 'filthy' sex-talk, clashing with quaint English politeness and reserve... Asking me if I could be a dirty little slut - "if it wouldn't be too much trouble, please" - and things like that...

Everytime I see that type of personality - I get vivid flashbacks of that evening, and feel the cringe run down my spine anew. Though I suppose it was fairly benign as trauma goes.

I can't wait to see the fun and games that ensue if ever you decide to publish "Miss Whiplash" style memoirs.

[lordpasternack]

*cough*

I think this is all one great big fucking mess, and Richard would have done far better to try to embrace me rather than trying to filter me out - but I WOULD say that, wouldn't I?

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 60#p918839

*ahem*

...who needs to continue to worry about credibility once you become Richard's protégé, anyway. It's not like he bothers to engage his critical faculties once you reach a certain level of Golden Child in his eyes... And why do we need to worry about being accountable to anyone but ourselves anyway, since it's OUR site? If we want to be hubristic wankers and sap the site slowly from the inside, and appear to go out of our way to piss a lot of people off in the process, that's our privilege, isn't it?

And I, Richard Dawkins, want a site more dedicated to Reason and Science, even though I hardly fucking looked at the science and reason-themed sections of the old site - and even though it's going to take that upstart little bastard lordpasternack to point out that the revamped site has as much true reason and science content as a Tesco Value sausage roll has meat content, before I actually notice this small triviality - and make some effort to try to fix it - by posting mailing-list fodder science news. But that's rhetoric for you - that's not living up to your own values for you - that's showing that even incredibly intelligent minds can be disgracefully stupid, insincere and short-sighted, for you.

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 27#p919027

Great minds think alike and all that.

Love the bit about "golden child" status. You should copyright that one.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... en%20child

[lordpasternack]

He spoke English in a honeyed voice of the best Old Etonian blend. It was easy to imagine with what lordly indifference he had brushed off his blunders in the First World War. He must have lived in a magic circle. Even after his vanity and ignorance had damaged Germany in the eyes of the world, he was still received by the Kaiser to give his views on submarine warfare. Unfortunately, he was 'hardly allowed to get a word in' [comment from von Papen's memoirs].

...

The statement which he made to me that afternoon was exquisite.

"I cannot understand why I find myself in this position, Herr Major".

"Why not read the indictment and you will see."

Ahehehe...

For the record - I did once have sex with an old Oxonian lecture (who wasn't Dawkins) - which was in equal parts endearing and embarrassing... Naive attempts at 'filthy' sex-talk, clashing with quaint English politeness and reserve... Asking me if I could be a dirty little slut - "if it wouldn't be too much trouble, please" - and things like that...

Everytime I see that type of personality - I get vivid flashbacks of that evening, and feel the cringe run down my spine anew. Though I suppose it was fairly benign as trauma goes.

I can't wait to see the fun and games that ensue if ever you decide to publish "Miss Whiplash" style memoirs.

[Calilasseia]

Oh, and with respect to this post of yours from the DSJT2 thread ...

And for the most part he had limited interation with the forum. He occasionally started threads, but rarely joined discussions or followed them.

Yeah, I know - but he did get involved to some extent, and certainly responded to some PMs... But my point still stands. He was completely oblivious, hands-off, and had no procedures in place for keeping him even vaguely informed about what was going on. That's the point. That was the problem. That's still what's not out of character for him. That's likely the parallel with this legal case.

One of the aspects of the forum débacle I find particularly annoying, is that he never once stepped into the Creationism section, and saw the hard work being done on his behalf by a good number of people, who gave up time and effort they could otherwise have devoted to far more selfish or superficial pursuits, delivering a big part of the mission he claimed to be interested in, by nailing creationist lies, and presenting, in an accessible manner, the hard science refuting those lies. That he never once offered even an ancknowledgement of the existence of that hard work, let alone something remotely resembling a 'thank you' before pulling the plug, is one of the reasons I don't really care about his reputation. What I care about, as I've stated above, is the fact that whatever shit hits the fan in future, as a result of his frankly derelict approach to the basics, could well have an ugly negative impact upon people who have no connection with him whatsoever.

[lordpasternack]

Or this post?

A lawyer such as the one he hired in California would normally provide detailed reports of everything that was done and send copies of every document to Dawkins. Most lawyers have clients review and approve all documents that are filed with the court prior to the documents being filed, at least when there is time.

I daresay Richard had his staff deal with that. Again - not out of character.

It would have had to have been willfully ignored.

It would not be out of character if Richard did exactly this - while leaving everything with the rest of RDFRS and his legal team.

Was I right or was I right?



See page 13 of the Motion for Terminating Sanctions.

And then of course we had his protégé, claiming that he wasn't as involved as much as might have been expected in the court case because he wasn't a Trustee at the time of the litigation... That was a good one, wasn't it?

[DaveDodo007]

So, erm what the fuck happened or should I say what the fuck didn't happen. It's like we atheist don't care about sexual shenanigans you naughty atheists you. I understand Lord P concerns about nepotism but it looks like atheism has moved on from 'atheist's leaders' bullshit. It's an individual movement (no herding cats allowed.) The main stream media (msm) is just not interested, after all you can't shame atheists for purity when they don't buy into that concept.

[Calilasseia]

Oh the trouble is, as I've stated repeatedly, that while we most likely couldn't give a shit into whose orifices RD inserts his todger, the fundies, especially creationists, will be all over this like hyenas, and Fucks News will probably milk it for all it's worth, peddling the usual bullshit about "atheist immorality" whilst hoping no one will ask awkward questions about all those child-raping Catholic priests, and the blatant attempt to meddle in the politics of democratic nations when the sordid underbelly of the Catholic Church was finally subject to the spotlight. Not to mention various fundie pastors who've been caught committing a wide range of offences, from helping themselves to other people's money illegally through to soliciting under-age girls for sex, and buggering under-age boys. They'll hope that this catalogue of supernaturalist malfeasance will go unnoticed while they're doing the usual Murdoch hatchet job on anyone who gets in the way of the right wing agenda. That political dimension I keep referring to is going to bite us all on the arse if someone doesn't give RD a big slap across the face and tell him to put a fucking padlock on his dick.

[charlou]

Oh the trouble is, as I've stated repeatedly, that while we most likely couldn't give a shit into whose orifices RD inserts his todger, the fundies, especially creationists, will be all over this like hyenas, and Fucks News will probably milk it for all it's worth, peddling the usual bullshit about "atheist immorality" whilst hoping no one will ask awkward questions about all those child-raping Catholic priests, and the blatant attempt to meddle in the politics of democratic nations when the sordid underbelly of the Catholic Church was finally subject to the spotlight. Not to mention various fundie pastors who've been caught committing a wide range of offences, from helping themselves to other people's money illegally through to soliciting under-age girls for sex, and buggering under-age boys. They'll hope that this catalogue of supernaturalist malfeasance will go unnoticed while they're doing the usual Murdoch hatchet job on anyone who gets in the way of the right wing agenda. That political dimension I keep referring to is going to bite us all on the arse if someone doesn't give RD a big slap across the face and tell him to put a fucking padlock on his dick.

They've had loads of time .. anything yet?

*crickets*

I'm with RD on minding our business wrt the dick usage of consenting adults. He's certainly not a hypocrite.

[lordpasternack]

I'm with RD on minding our business wrt the dick usage of consenting adults. He's certainly not a hypocrite.

I for one wouldn't care if he was having grand orgies in private, and no harm seemed to come to anyone involved.

I do care if he's clearly showing bias in giving salaried positions to his mistresses - corresponding with them via "secret email accounts" to discuss various "secret agendas" for his charity, and having people run a charity when they are manifestly not competent to do so. Especially if said people have a documented history of deception and distortion. And I also care in principle if someone is potentially using sex to exploit someone else psychologically - even if the target is an adult, and to all intents and purposes feels that they consent (Richard, in this case).

And he is hypocritical if he claims no shame or guilt in what his affairs (including buying his mistress property) - but then lies about them anyway. (And for what it's worth - the law doesn't agree that it's simply "his private business", else those facts wouldn't be on the public record.) There is also a great whack of hypocrisy when he says that he loves truth, and then lies, by calling ME a liar, when he knows fine well that I am telling the honest truth, unsensationally and everything.

And there's some hypocrisy in all his rhetoric about how he had to censor sexual content on the old forum because "this is a site dedicated to reason and science" - while he was happy with all the genuinely professionally risky sexual shenanigans going on behind the scenes - and while he doesn't seem to give a shit about his charity repeatedly failing its objectives while using up donors' money.

Sex is a complicated issue - and I'm sure you wouldn't be hard-pushed to think of a number of messy emotional scenarios, conflicts of interest, and psychologically abusive (adult) relationships, where sex was an important factor in gluing all the parts together. The line is also sometimes blurred with respect to whether it should be considered private, or whether it concerns other parties.

[Red Celt]

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth...

[Calilasseia]

Oh the trouble is, as I've stated repeatedly, that while we most likely couldn't give a shit into whose orifices RD inserts his todger, the fundies, especially creationists, will be all over this like hyenas, and Fucks News will probably milk it for all it's worth, peddling the usual bullshit about "atheist immorality" whilst hoping no one will ask awkward questions about all those child-raping Catholic priests, and the blatant attempt to meddle in the politics of democratic nations when the sordid underbelly of the Catholic Church was finally subject to the spotlight. Not to mention various fundie pastors who've been caught committing a wide range of offences, from helping themselves to other people's money illegally through to soliciting under-age girls for sex, and buggering under-age boys. They'll hope that this catalogue of supernaturalist malfeasance will go unnoticed while they're doing the usual Murdoch hatchet job on anyone who gets in the way of the right wing agenda. That political dimension I keep referring to is going to bite us all on the arse if someone doesn't give RD a big slap across the face and tell him to put a fucking padlock on his dick.

They've had loads of time .. anything yet?

*crickets*

I'm with RD on minding our business wrt the dick usage of consenting adults. He's certainly not a hypocrite.

Usually, I'm in favour of treating dick insertions as irrelevant too. Trouble is, when you're taking on a well financed and politically well connected enemy, for whom dick insertions are a major, and potentially clinically pathological, fixation, it's wise not to give them the ammunition they need to distract attention from their own inconsistencies, weaknesses and outright duplicity. Either exercise some circumspection in this regard, or be up front right from the beginning, and say straight out that you don't regard their sanctimonious moralising as applicable to you, so they can fuck off if they want to try and use this as some sort of weapon. At which point you're free to turn the fire on them, and point to all the fundie pastors caught with perverted objects in their rectal passages in their bathrooms, or ensnared by FBI agents trying to solicit 13 year old girls for sex.

[Red Celt]

Oh the trouble is, as I've stated repeatedly, that while we most likely couldn't give a shit into whose orifices RD inserts his todger, the fundies, especially creationists, will be all over this like hyenas, and Fucks News will probably milk it for all it's worth, peddling the usual bullshit about "atheist immorality" whilst hoping no one will ask awkward questions about all those child-raping Catholic priests, and the blatant attempt to meddle in the politics of democratic nations when the sordid underbelly of the Catholic Church was finally subject to the spotlight. Not to mention various fundie pastors who've been caught committing a wide range of offences, from helping themselves to other people's money illegally through to soliciting under-age girls for sex, and buggering under-age boys. They'll hope that this catalogue of supernaturalist malfeasance will go unnoticed while they're doing the usual Murdoch hatchet job on anyone who gets in the way of the right wing agenda. That political dimension I keep referring to is going to bite us all on the arse if someone doesn't give RD a big slap across the face and tell him to put a fucking padlock on his dick.

They've had loads of time .. anything yet?

*crickets*

I'm with RD on minding our business wrt the dick usage of consenting adults. He's certainly not a hypocrite.

Usually, I'm in favour of treating dick insertions as irrelevant too. Trouble is, when you're taking on a well financed and politically well connected enemy, for whom dick insertions are a major, and potentially clinically pathological, fixation, it's wise not to give them the ammunition they need to distract attention from their own inconsistencies, weaknesses and outright duplicity. Either exercise some circumspection in this regard, or be up front right from the beginning, and say straight out that you don't regard their sanctimonious moralising as applicable to you, so they can fuck off if they want to try and use this as some sort of weapon. At which point you're free to turn the fire on them, and point to all the fundie pastors caught with perverted objects in their rectal passages in their bathrooms, or ensnared by FBI agents trying to solicit 13 year old girls for sex.

What the fucking fuck!? And who made you judge and jury over what is and is not allowed viz-a-viz the contents of RD's underpants? If his position of attack was as piss-poor weak as the bedroom antics of a sub-group of a sub-group of a sub-group of a particular branch of one particular religion... you might have a fucking point. But it isn't. It's about religion, itself. And he can be making those comments whilst being sucked off by a crack-whore... and those comments would still stand strong.

Will you pitiful little people contemplate (if you can) the journey that RD has taken, in order to be able to confront religion the way he does... and compare that with your journey of, oh I dunno, double-clicking an Internet Explorer icon?

[JimC]

One can be full of admiration of RD's output as a writer over all these years while still shaking one's head at some of his decisions, whether personal or to do with his forum...

[Red Celt]

One can be full of admiration of RD's output as a writer over all these years while still shaking one's head at some of his decisions, whether personal or to do with his forum...

And that's the rub, isn't it? Because some of the people here were users of his forum, you think that you have some magical place within the control centre's of RD's brain. I was a forum user of The Thinking Atheist's forum. Compared to RD, he's a nothingness... and even he was too busy (doing what he does) to have anything to do with his forum. It was managed by someone else. He has/had zero interaction with it, other than an occasional post saying "you're all lovely people".

Now imagine RD's workload. Be thankful that you had the opportunity to interact with him (at whatever level), and stop bleating on like spoilt children when he behaves in a way that you think is unsuitable. He's his own moral agent. He'll rise (or fall) by his own actions, without being harassed and harangued by some back-seat drivers who once used a forum that he had set up and (surprisingly) took the time to involve himself with.