kiki5711 wrote:I do get you LP.
From this point on, what would you like to happen that would satisfy your mind and put your heart at ease?
Either writing RDFRS off completely at my end, and encouraging others to do likewise - or seeing Richard finally
holding himself and his staff to account to something approaching the same degree that he likes to see other organisations taken to account - with all the positive ramifications that would ultimately flow from that.
For Richard to hold himself and his protégés to the same intolerance of bullshit as he holds other parties.The same intolerance of wishy-washy arguments and stupid excuses; the same intolerance of rank stupidity and manifest incompetence; the same intolerance of shitty effort; the same intolerance of cynical, half-truth PR-speak; the same intolerance of a man more eager to defend his allies than defend the truth - to the same intolerances he applies to practically every sphere EXCEPT his own house. To apply reasoning, scientific thinking and evidence-based understanding to the running of his organisation that purports to promote those very values. To be ever so fucking good as to practice what he so eloquently preaches - in a nutshell. That would be nice to see.
On a side-note - I find it quite amusing - that in an email from way back when that Andrew Chalkley forwarded to me, Richard was discussing some rule-change or other on RD.net, and he stated that he should want it to be implemented discreetly or something - so as to avoid "Lordpasternackian accusations of censorship". (Yay! I'm (in)famous!)
I found it amusing on two counts - the first being that I don't honestly ever recall seriously accusing anyone
from RDFRS of censorship. I may have nagged, badgered, lobbied, growled, persuaded, implored and importuned Richard and others over many issues in my time, but you'd be hard-pushed to find even two occasions of me crying "censorship!". The second vein of amusement comes from the very fact that Mr Editorial Discretion
himself just fucking loves a bit of getting his quixotic little knickers all in a twist
- when he sees editorial discretion that he just so happens to disagree with
And I just don't... I have principles, and I tend to stick to them - but they tend to be (I hope) fundamentally reasonable principles. I don't pursue the vein of censorship too far because I know just how easy it is to get stuck into the contradictory loop that Richard exists in - where, when he agrees with it, it's editorial discretion, and when he so happens to disagree with it - it's censorship. His quixotism is one that flips and flops through 180-degree turns - not due to any rational enlightenment - but entirely for his own personal convenience and biases in any given situation. My quixotism generally doesn't squeak an inch to the left or right - except through reason. And I know I'm likely biased - but I tend to find that a little superior...
So - Richard, sweetheart - you're actually far more likely to receive Dawkinsian
accusations of censorship than Lordpasternackian
ones - it's just that you probably have more to worry about from the latter, since they'll be more internally consistent, more rigorous, and better argued than the former!