Please sign here/Open Letter - RE: Richard Dawkins Forum

[Skylarking]

Go away, troll.

Looks like our Exodus wasn't done as well as Moses and the Pharaoh has sent his slavers out for the hunt.

[pErvinalia]

As the copious words prompted by the revamp and temporary closure of Richard Dawkins’ forum attest, those by Peter Harrison not the least, truth takes many forms.

Having read some of Peter’s past missionary devotions delivering angst-ridden waifs from the evil clutches of their Christian relatives, I’m not really all that surprised. Who better for erecting damning edifices on the skimpiest of evidence, expediently boosting own web-site’s hits and personal stocks no end?

Who better indeed than one who purveys “magic/mentalism material for other performers” for turning a sow’s ear into the proverbial silk purse, or what had become a pit of vulgar imbecility and infantile drivel, a theatre of navel-gazing, bickering narcissists into that once hoped-for oasis of reason.

And instead of the one lately overseen in the main by inept clowns more concerned with sating own bloated egos and in playing favorites than in maintaining acceptable debating standards. As Richard shrewdly asked, “Have private fiefdoms been unwittingly trampled?”

Our drama queen’s latest wordy rant sees a subtle change though, with the blame now more safely shifted to Josh and Andrew, although not totally.

“Of course, it is a possibility that Dawkins knows this and is lying to us all. You never know. But my personal opinion is that he isn’t. Richard may be saying awful things about us that aren’t true, but that doesn’t stop me from being on his side. Some have accused me of being an enemy of Dawkins. This is not the case. He has been as much of an inspiration in my life as the community we helped create, and he still is.

“Is this really newsworthy? It’s very sad for those involved, and I thought it was worth taking some to explain what actually happened, but surely this isn’t something the general public are going to be interested in. I think a lot of people currently have a lack of perspective. My tiny little blog has had tens of thousands of visitors in a few days, I’ve had phone calls and emails from The Times and Channel 4, and offers to write articles for magazines. I’m shocked that so many people are discussing this.”

In that case, lay off and give us all a break, Peter!

Arriving at similar conclusions a while back, I obviously concur wholeheartedly with Richard’s ‘outrage’ remarks. Occasionally I even surmised if it wouldn’t be worthwhile to spit the forum into two, one section for mature adults with the rest reserved for the majority, let us say those of a more childish disposition, and as naturally embracing most of the USA contingent.

Moreover, in Richard’s shoes, who’d wish to remain associated with a forum enveloped in large part of inane dross and vulgar, point-scoring banality? And as a vehicle for promoting Dawkins’ products, Richard may well have concluded that the damage to his personal reputation had started to outweigh the commercial benefits.

The new forum will favour quality over quantity, with the opening of new topics requiring prior approval (so doing away with the opening of duplicate topics by desperadoes merely avid in seeing their names up in lights!) Who could ask for more?

The idea that that Richard, or Josh and Andrew for that matter owe some kind of debt for moderators’ past exertions is absurd. No one forced them to consent to this role nor did anyone, as equally applies to any other poster, insist they’d gratuitously compile oh-so erudite posts bolstering own sense of self-importance and communal standing. In exchange for bringing in prospective customers and keeping things on an even keel, they were given the opportunity to ego-trip to their hearts’ delight: paid in full.

Finally, if Josh made any mistakes it lay in the initial idea of keeping the forum open for another thirty days: shutting it down completely on account of ‘technical difficulties’ and not reopening till fully reorganised may have been preferable.

Seth! Nice to see you again mate.

Seriously, that has to be Seth right? The language is all right, as is the attitude. I'd stake my left testicle on this new member being our ol' mate Seth!

[kiki5711]

I'm sorry Topsy, but seeing everyone coming here for cover, then making some other forum, sort of identical to Richards just seemed to me like ass kisssing. Let him come look for us.!!!! Not us begging him to take us back.

That's all.

OK I think I see what you mean but I'm not sure you are right. Nobody is begging Richard to take us back. The RD.net forum is dead but its members aren't and they need somewhere to go.

When his new discussion area opens, some RDF people will post there and he'll also get new posters. It won't be a forum and that's what lots of people want, particularly as they contributed so much content to RD's own forum and gained so much pleasure, challenge, support and friendship in the process.

RD and the Foundation have decided they don't want a forum anymore but for those who do, there is an alternative and many of us are using that opportunity so generously provided by "Life".

Luv ya Tospy, you are one fine lady and worked the hardest as a mod, always with politeness and heart.!!!

[Skylarking]

<snip></snip>.

Seth! Nice to see you again mate.

Seriously, that has to be Seth right? The language is all right, as is the attitude. I'd stake my left testicle on this new member being our ol' mate Seth!

Seth?







For the love of cheese, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[tortouse]

<snip></snip>.

Seth! Nice to see you again mate.

Seriously, that has to be Seth right? The language is all right, as is the attitude. I'd stake my left testicle on this new member being our ol' mate Seth!

Seth?







For the love of cheese, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[Matthew Shute]

I've signed/commented on the open letter.

[Strontium Dog]

Hmmm

[Matthew Shute]

Hmmm

So, what is this supposed to mean?

[Strontium Dog]

It wasn't a comment on your post! Just bookmarking the appearance of this Shielson fellow...

[Matthew Shute]

Sorry! (Jumping to conclusions.)

[hotshoe]

It wasn't a comment on your post! Just bookmarking the appearance of this Shielson fellow...

Heehee.

No, seriously, good idea. Could be more fun than the rest of us sincere but boring posters.

Without the cachet of Dawkins' name to draw in the dregs of irrationality for "combat", we will have to find our fun where we can.

[mark1961]

As the copious words prompted by the revamp and temporary closure of Richard Dawkins’ forum attest, those by Peter Harrison not the least, truth takes many forms.

Having read some of Peter’s past missionary devotions delivering angst-ridden waifs from the evil clutches of their Christian relatives, I’m not really all that surprised. Who better for erecting damning edifices on the skimpiest of evidence, expediently boosting own web-site’s hits and personal stocks no end?

Much of this post flew over my head. Most of it quite frankly flew under it as well. This extract however did cause a little ire. An attempt by I feel PH's actions in good faith (how I love that irony) to counsel another in a difficult time is laudable. The snideness of the above comment is evidence of it's own fallacy. When viewed with my own experience of fellow humans.

Yet more evidence of the damage RD's clusterfuck has made. There will be fewer of these incidents. We live in, I hope a world where we can choose what to believe and what suits us as individuals. What's wrong about helping a person be what they want?

(experimenting with italics, boding and colour please comment)

[Shrunk]

Here's what I've posted on the open letter:

The message that should have been sent, but wasn't:

Dear forum members,

We wanted you all to know at the earliest opportunity about our new website currently in development.

The new RichardDawkins.net will have a fully-integrated discussion section. This will be a new feature for the site, similar to the current forum, but not identical. We feel the new system will be much cleaner and easier to use, and hopefully this will encourage participation from a wider variety of users.

The new discussion area will not be a new forum. It will be different. Starting a new discussion will require approval, so we ask that you only submit new discussions that are truly relevant to reason and science. Subsequent responses on the thread will not need approval—however anything off topic or violating the new terms of service will be removed. The approval process will be there to ensure the quality of posts on the site. This is purely an editorial exercise to help new visitors find quality content quickly.

This does mean, however, that the scope of discussion in the new format will be much limited compared to the present. We recognize this will not be a welcome change to many current members. However, we feel that this more focused format better reflects the goals of the RDF and, in the end, will make the board attractive to a larger group of potential members.

This change aside, our goal is for the remaining discussion boards to continue to function in much the same way as it has. We recognize that the forum could not have achieved anything near its current success without the tireless work of our team of volunteer moderators. We wish to assure you that the moderation team will continue to be involved in the operation of the new board. The degree of involvement and time required of them may be less with the new format, but we suspect they will not find this to be an entirely unwelcome change!

One question that is certain to arise is "What will happen to the content of the old forum?"' Over the time the board has been in existence, it has become a repository of a vast amount to valuable information on science and rational thought, unique on the internet, and this is a resource should remain available. We are not yet sure whether or how this can be integrated into the new format, but we wish to assure you that the content will remain accessible in some form. (We welcome any suggestions on how this could best be accomplished). In the meantime, the board will continue to operate as usual until the new format becomes operational. After that, it will remain available in a "read only" format, until we can decide on the best option to preserve the older posts.

We thank you all again for you support and hope we can continue to count on it in the exciting times ahead.

If a message of this sort had been sent, instead of the one that actually was, the changes in the board would have been effected more or less as the RDF envisaged, without offending and alienating the members who made the forum what is was, and without embarrassing and compromising the mission of the RDF.

[tortouse]

If a message of this sort had been sent, instead of the one that actually was, the changes in the board would have been effected more or less as the RDF envisaged, without offending and alienating the members who made the forum what is was, and without embarrassing and compromising the mission of the RDF.

amen ... er, i think this is fantastic shrunk, what a great shame to clear thinking that this wasn't posted by josh in the first place.

[Equivokate]

I will sign and comment. I am *appalled at how the now RDF Community has been treated*