Announcement about RDF Part 2.

[Jerome23]

have you all seen this drivel

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 0&t=110356

Modest ain't he?

[fredbear]

thanks for all that work peter.

[j.mills]

Well, mixed support from notable personalities...

I don't think I've ever disagreed with Paula Kirby before. There was little sympathy about the farrago from the crowd on the rd.net front-page threads either: it seems like you had to inhabit the forum to 'get it'. Almost never saw Richard in there.

[Flora]

Professor Dawkins, if you happen to venture this far into the site (it appears that you may have visited here), I hope you will take just a tiny moment to register the disappointment and disgust many of us feel.

Until now I have reserved my ire for the inept individuals who lied to your UNPAID moderation team (the ones who did the actual hard work which kept that clunking behemoth going - your pets couldn't even be bothered to provide a search function which worked, rendering the permission given by them to retrieve any useful information less than worthless), deleted members and their entire post history apparently in a fit of pique and removed any dissenting comments however mild. I haven't said much yet - others are so much more eloquent, and besides, you deserved the benefit of the doubt.

However, having read your message which is hopelessly one-sided and an almost reptilian display of schadenfreude, I have to tell you that I'll never buy a thing you write again. You will never receive another penny of my money. I'm sure this won't trouble you one iota - I am only one (pretty skint) person after all - no doubt I am 'hysterical' for saying such a thing. Please feel free to think of me in this way; it will not cause me any sadness at all, since your opinions on such things appear to be hopelessly out of touch with reality.

The fact that you could not pause, however briefly, during your rant to thank all those admirable individuals who gave of their time WITHOUT financial reward to keep that place going says all that needs to be said. I think it's a clear indication of just how much they were valued by you. But by us, the members who contributed to your coffers by donating money and buying your books and merchandise, who formed friendships and found comfort in the community they helped to flourish, they're nothing short of diamonds.

Please - continue to use the fact that a few individuals felt compelled to berate you in the strongest terms possible as an excuse to claim that there is 'something wrong' with all of us if it amuses you. A thread was started for members to discuss this change, and to vent their spleen, but it was pretty restrained. No one even said anything which broke any of the forum rules. It certainly wasn't a hotbed of hysteria. Nevertheless, it was entirely deleted. No one was allowed to level any criticism whatsoever at this cack-handed move. I'd rather not be a member of a place where at any moment the facade of reasoned discourse can be swept away at a moment's notice and the participants (even the mild-mannered ones) branded as hysterical for disagreeing. I won't be joining you in the Promised Land, and nor will scores of others.

This is a sorry state of affairs.

This is beautifully put, Fallible. I only hope he reads it!

Yes Nora, so do I but while RD's being fed lies based on some extreme quote mining, he's likely to consider the majority of the RDF members and staff as beneath contempt.

[Elena]

Incidentally. There's all this talk of the site being that of the Richard Dawkins Foundation. But that has its own site, and the two were separate, I thought, precisely so that the wild fizzing melange that was rd.net would not 'taint' the clear and clean image of the Foundation. Now suddenly rd.net is the public face of RDFRS?

That has me stumped, too. On top of everything else.

[the pigeon]

he's likely to consider the majority of the RDF members and staff as beneath contempt.

I think you're absolutely correct, and that's the part I find hard to understand. Why are we so contemptible?

[Matt H]

I was apprehensive about the response we'd get from Pharyngula but they seem to have been mostly supportive too (apart from a few snarky comments). The most recent post came from this fellow:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... nt-2300349

Right, which is the biggest problem I have with the whole thing. I wasn't a poster on the RDF, but I did have an account and visited once upon a time. I'm saying that I have to side with the Peter Harrison account (and by proxy, with the disenfranchised Mods) since it's the one with evidence on its side, while it appears that the other side has squelched dissent and destroyed relevant evidence.

I don't necessarily agree with the hyperbolic insults, but then, I can't say I'm surprised to find atheists devising new and colorful ways to describe irrational behavior and dishonest people. After all, this is Pharyngula.

Richard Dawkins got so self-righteous on Josh's behalf, I was worried his behaviour would be swept under the rug and this whole thing would be forgotten, but thanks to so many of you people, we've made our case known.

Now, I said I would move on and leave this behind, but I just can't do it. There's still a lot going on, it's getting interesting now.

[HughMcB]

There's only a few outcomes of all this IMO...

Either;

a) RD finally learns the truth and tries to reach out to the adrift community somehow with an apology or something (least likely)

b) RD already knows the truth and doesn't give a fuck (most likely)

c) Josh will do a good enough cover up the RD will never know what happened, at least in full (this could happen, at least he could spin it the right way)

or (for your amusement)

d) Josh and Chalkers get attacked by a bear who proceeds to use their crotch as his favourite chew toy

*uh-oh! I better take that back or they might quote mine me too and say its all my fault!*

BB IZ WATCHUN U!

[klr]

There's only a few outcomes of all this IMO...

Either;

a) RD finally learns the truth and tries to reach out to the adrift community somehow with an apology or something (least likely)

b) RD already knows the truth and doesn't give a fuck (most likely)

c) Josh will do a good enough cover up the RD will never know what happened, at least in full (this could happen, at least he could spin it the right way)

or (for your amusement)

d) Josh and Chalkers get attacked by a bear who proceeds to use their crotch as his favourite chew toy

*uh-oh! I better take that back or they might quote mine me too and say its all my fault!*

BB IZ WATCHUN U!

There's something in the Bible eerily like that.

[Wiðercora]

d) Josh and Chalkers get attacked by a bear who proceeds to use their crotch as his favourite chew toy

A bear summoned by God as punishment for mocking the bald?

[ozewiezeloose]

d) Josh and Chalkers get attacked by a bear who proceeds to use their crotch as his favourite chew toy

Doesn't look like there's anything to chew there!

NB: Don't quote-mine me, smartasses.

[Ilovelucy]

There's only a few outcomes of all this IMO...

Either;

a) RD finally learns the truth and tries to reach out to the adrift community somehow with an apology or something (least likely)

b) RD already knows the truth and doesn't give a fuck (most likely)

c) Josh will do a good enough cover up the RD will never know what happened, at least in full (this could happen, at least he could spin it the right way)

or (for your amusement)

d) Josh and Chalkers get attacked by a bear who proceeds to use their crotch as his favourite chew toy

*uh-oh! I better take that back or they might quote mine me too and say its all my fault!*

BB IZ WATCHUN U!

All the info is out there. Some people are still stuck on this idea that Richard just needs to be pointed to the right story. He's a grown up, a tech savvy grown up at that, I don't buy the conspiracy about Josh spoon feeding the interwebz to him. To be fair, my idol worship phase was waning anyway, but this has nicely nudged me over the edge.

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

I'm not turning on anybody, so don't accuse me of such. Now from reading this thread I see that there is yet another side to this. I don't know what to think anymore about who is doing what and why it was done. You know what? Maybe Richard is wrong. I don't know. I don't know the whole story in regard to this and I also don't appreciate the implication that I am blindly siding with Richard. At this point, it looks like both sides have acted ridiculously. That's all I can say.

Julie

[ozewiezeloose]

I'm not turning on anybody, so don't accuse me of such. Now from reading this thread I see that there is yet another side to this. I don't know what to think anymore about who is doing what and why it was done. You know what? Maybe Richard is wrong. I don't know. I don't know the whole story in regard to this and I also don't appreciate the implication that I am blindly siding with Richard. At this point, it looks like both sides have acted ridiculously. That's all I can say.

Julie

Richard sure is wrong. The question is whether he has been misinformed (which I doubt) or knows what's happened and doesn't care (which is even worse).

[Apollonius]

I have more than a few times defended Dawkins against friends' claims of his arrogance. I wonder if I was wrong.....

Does anyone else find RD "Shrill" all of a sudden?

He does seem a bit... militant all of a sudden.

He came across as a dick. He has a fancy degree and job and wrote some books, but he's still a dick.