RD.net to be re-revamped!

A forum to talk about other sites and things you've found in the jungle that is the internet.

Please take a moment to read the rationalia guidelines: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449
Locked
User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: RD.net to be re-revamped!

Post by lordpasternack » Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:03 am

I sent Paula this last night. Like I said, I don't ever anticipate receiving an apology - but I'm pretty sure she owes me one. And she owes me it not because I'm actually a really nice person, and I've been kind to her - but because SHE FUCKED UP. I didn't decide that Richard didn't deserve an apology from me because he said nasty and intemperate things about me. That's not how it works. I fucked up, and I was in the wrong, so I owe an apology. Same applies to Paula. It's a simple matter of integrity and responsibility… But I'm not going to push it at all. It's quite enough for me to say it publicly and privately, and then put it to bed at my end.
Purely incidentally - I think you owe me an apology, as rightly as I owed you an apology - even though I don't anticipate ever actually receiving one. I also think you owe Richard an apology for the dire mishandling of my query (while supposed to be assuming responsibility for his foundation's reputation), and the small public discussion that followed from that, INCLUDING my partly justifiable anger. He's at least more likely to see that apology from you, I'd venture.

My initial emails were civil, and my request was infinitesimally trivial, yet important, and in your interests to address. As simple as a link to your Annual Report, or a quick copy and paste onto the UK foundation site. Resolved. Everybody's happy, and I would have helped you to have addressed a weakness you may not have been conscious of… And yet you begrudged that? And yet you dragged your heels for WEEKS, begrudging that?

I can't know the full details of the prejudices, preconceptions, grudges and conspiracy theories you held about me - but I know that they were WRONG, most likely bizarre, and COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to whether you should have addressed the issue I raised, promptly - not just for myself, but for RDFRS, and all other interested parties.

You were trying to make a point about how you don't respond to undesirables, and (nonexistent) blackmail? Well let's just say, you definitely sure showed ME… You sure showed me just how much you are willing to prioritise childish grudges, passive-aggression, and spite, over professionalism, decency, reason and your personal and corporate reputations.

Spiting me was more important, or easier, than quickly and efficiently snuffing the issue out, for the good of EVERYBODY? Do I even need to explain to a PR person, to a person of your intelligence, how utterly pathetic and contemptible that is? Do I need to explain how it was utterly futile and senseless, as well as obnoxious?

I just hope that you got whatever schadenfreude or affirmation you were after, before you started to feel twinges of regret and embarrassment, and dare I say, guilt - but one thing for certain is that, after this, I don't want to see you moralise to ANYONE about diplomacy, tact and conflict resolution - and perhaps a few other topics besides…

You could have nipped this in the bud IMMEDIATELY, and you spitefully chose not to. The brouhaha was entirely your engineering. Shame on you.

Regards,

Heather.
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: RD.net to be re-revamped!

Post by Hermit » Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:34 pm

I stopped reading eight words into the second sentence, and I am on your side. What do you think the odds are of that message being binned or archived unread by someone who regards you as a minor irritant to one of their projects of their grand scheme?
Last edited by Hermit on Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Eriku
Posts: 1194
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 10:19 am
About me: Mostly harmless...
Location: Ørsta, Norway
Contact:

Re: RD.net to be re-revamped!

Post by Eriku » Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:37 pm

If nothing else that letter has cleared up how to spell "brouhaha", for me... Which I very much appreciate.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47197
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: RD.net to be re-revamped!

Post by Tero » Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:46 pm

RD.net to be re-revamped!

Are we ever going to get a really good total new creation? It would then be vamped, or re-re-revamped.
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
Cunt
Lumpy Vagina Bloodfart
Posts: 18529
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: RD.net to be re-revamped!

Post by Cunt » Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:56 pm

I stopped reading a few lines in, too. Different reasons, though. This was the only place I have found you posting lately, and it isn't worth picking at it anymore (for me). I hope I find you posting about circumcision somewhere soon. Or just about anything other than a dried up old man who doesn't deserve my attention anymore.
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists


Joe wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2023 1:22 pm
he doesn't communicate

The 'Walsh Question' 'What Is A Woman?' I'll put an answer here when someone posts one that is clear and comprehensible, by apostates to the Faith.

Update: I've been offered one!
rainbow wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2023 9:23 pm
It is actually quite easy. A woman has at least one X chromosome.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: RD.net to be re-revamped!

Post by lordpasternack » Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:45 pm

Yeah - I think I'm finally putting it to bed, Cunt. Paula fucked me about, and fucked Richard and RDFRS about in so doing.

What baffles me now is how trivially simple it would have been for her to have chosen the best possible decision for everyone - while instead, she ironically chose to demonstrate dire unprofessionalism, childishness, passive-aggressive spite, and indeed a complete disregard for the image she was conveying about herself and RDFRS. She could have done a good job by simply showing everyone what a good job she's doing - and instead she chose perversely to do an absolutely fucking terrible job by withholding that, spiting me, dragging her heels for weeks, and giving pathetic rationales for why that's even sane, never mind legitimate behaviour. Both bizarre AND pathetically unprofessional.

We're just one datum away from establishing a trend, though. Back during forumgate - she actually requested Andrew Chalkley to delete a forum member - with the rationale that: "This is WAR."

Yes, let's purposefully stoke the acrimony and stir people up, Paula. Your integrity, and RDFRS's reputation and credibility are all very important - but don't ever let them get in the way of your lesser-known childish, passive-aggressive, spiteful and vindictive streak. You have IMPORTANT GRUDGES to pursue, at the end of the day.

And isn't it just interesting how so often it's the very characters who love to lecture everyone else about diplomacy, tact, good manners and morality - who will be the ones who will play the dirtiest, be the slimiest, and sink the lowest in conflict, given the chance. Whereas the one accused of being strident so often turns out to be the one with just a little more backbone. :smug:

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: RD.net to be re-revamped!

Post by lordpasternack » Wed Feb 08, 2012 7:31 pm

In other news - Richard Dawkins recently contacted the Templeton Foundation, asking them what they had been up to in the last two years, and what kinds of things they do with donations, since the information wasn't available or apparent on their site. After six weeks of Richard having been ignored point-blank, I contacted them myself - and they told me that they were actually perfectly happy to tell people what they do, but that they didn't like Richard's history of contemptuousness of them, as well as his shrillness and stridency, and felt blackmailed by him.

Richard was obviously such a fool to doubt them - the wretch! Why didn't he realise that you need to make sure you ask really, really nicely, and not have Richard Dawkins' history, if you want to ask for simple evidence like that? How could he not realise that getting a little intemperate with them after the second or third week of being ignored, ruffled their delicate little feathers? I mean, I understand that it annoyed Richard to be ignored like that, and that it only stoked the suspicions that he held about them, and that he was right in the first place that there was a paucity of information about them available - but why should they care, and why should they cooperate with someone being rude to them?

And anyway, a couple of weeks later, they copied and pasted a section from their Annual Report onto their incredibly crap site. Issue addressed! Eight weeks for that kind of response is entirely satisfactory, in my view.

That really just is how things work with organisations who take themselves seriously, isn't it? That's how things should work in RDFRS, too. Richard obviously wants to establish and maintain the highest standards of practice, to ensure that his Foundation really does meet the principles and ambitions he's assigned it. Oh, wait - he obviously actually really doesn't. That's why it's been slowly but surely flopping for the past two years - and why he wants to be accommodationist and conciliatory with various individuals responsible - instead of banging their fucking heads together, reminding people what their jobs are, and making sure mistakes are actually fixed properly. He just cares more about the lovely people he employs than he does about his Foundation, you understand.
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: RD.net to be re-revamped!

Post by Rum » Wed Feb 08, 2012 7:46 pm

Sadly Dawkins really isn't as smart as many people seem to think when he is away from evolutionary biology. Some of his responses in discussions and debates concerning atheism and/or religion are ill judged and impulsive I have noticed of late. I don't say it lightly as it was the God Delusion which made me finally commit my views about religion and I am grateful for that. Going back to the book recently some of it feels kind of crude now.
Last edited by Rum on Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ronja
Just Another Safety Nut
Posts: 10920
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:13 pm
About me: mother of 2 girls, married to fellow rat MiM, student (SW, HCI, ICT...) , self-employed editor/proofreader/translator
Location: Helsinki, Finland, EU
Contact:

Re: RD.net to be re-revamped!

Post by Ronja » Wed Feb 08, 2012 7:58 pm

Rum wrote:Sadly Dawkins really isn't as smart of many people seem to think when he is away from evolutionary biology. Some of his responses in discussions and debates concerning atheism and/or religion are ill judged and impulsive I have noticed of late. I don't say it lightly as it was the God Delusion which made me finally commit my views about religion and I am grateful for that. Going back to the book recently some of it feels kind of crude now.
I sort of wish - if for nostalgic reasons only - that I could say that I disagree with at least some of this. But I can't. :sadcheer:
"The internet is made of people. People matter. This includes you. Stop trying to sell everything about yourself to everyone. Don’t just hammer away and repeat and talk at people—talk TO people. It’s organic. Make stuff for the internet that matters to you, even if it seems stupid. Do it because it’s good and feels important. Put up more cat pictures. Make more songs. Show your doodles. Give things away and take things that are free." - Maureen J

"...anyone who says it’s “just the Internet” can :pawiz: . And then when they come back, they can :pawiz: again." - Tigger

User avatar
leo-rcc
Robo-Warrior
Posts: 7848
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:09 pm
About me: Combat robot builder
Location: Hoogvliet-Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Re: RD.net to be re-revamped!

Post by leo-rcc » Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:07 am

Rum wrote:Going back to the book recently some of it feels kind of crude now.
It was my very first book on the subject, and as such I found it at first glance pretty good (I was already an atheist so it did not change anything for me), but since then I've read more books that were several magnitudes better than TGD. Reading it for a second time, I found some issues with it, specially his Dawkins scale. But then again that wasn't the reason I joined RDF in the first place so I don't care about it that much.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
My combat robot site: http://www.team-rcc.org
My other favorite atheist forum: http://www.atheistforums.org

Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you

User avatar
charlou
arseist
Posts: 32524
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:36 am

Re: RD.net to be re-revamped!

Post by charlou » Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:47 am

Rum wrote:Going back to the book recently some of it feels kind of crude now.
Yes .. nail/head

But that's more to do with how I've moved on than anything wrong with the book. I'm still grateful to Richard for writing it .. Had he not, I would not be here talking about this with you .. and so much more has come from it for me than I have time to include here ... I still admire his courage in writing TGD, and his academic work.

Outside that, I'm no more interested in gossip about him than I am in any other celebrity gossip ... or even gossip in general.
no fences

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: RD.net to be re-revamped!

Post by Gallstones » Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:47 am

Tero wrote:RD.net to be re-revamped!

Are we ever going to get a really good total new creation? It would then be vamped, or re-re-revamped.
No.

You can breath again now.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: RD.net to be re-revamped!

Post by lordpasternack » Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:43 pm

lordpasternack wrote:And a brief summary, with reflection:
Richard, in his email to Kiki, wrote:What we won't do… is respond to individuals [with] a long history of persistent, excessive, stalker-like contact, ranging from obsessive, daily harassment to out-and-out hate mail; and nor, of course, will we under any circumstances respond to attempted blackmail, whatever form that might take.
I think we've established by now that this was mostly bollocks.
And coming back to this one small point, if ye don't mind my doing so - I think Richard knows full well that that picture of me that he painted was mostly bollocks - but he just much preferred sticking to that narrative, over aknowledging that someone that he himself has considered intelligent, someone whom he has openly wished well in science after having said that, and someone who has actually for the most part been completely reasonable and polite to him, really could be as scornful of RDFRS as I am.

Well, no - Richard - I'm afraid to have to inform you that my intelligence, insight and thoughtfulness - which you have complimented in the past - doesn't, in fact, conveniently evaporate when I discuss the topic of your foundation - even though yours clearly often does. Not even when I start nagging you about it. Not even when I get angry. Not even if I obsess about it. Not even if I piss you off a fair bit.

I'm not the only one who feels this scorn for RDFRS - not the only intelligent, scientifically-minded new atheist who feels this scorn for RDFRS. The only main difference is in how in-your-face I've been about it with Richard personally. And he'd just love to dismiss me as a loopy, blackmailing, trolling, creepy-stalkerish little bastard - even if, when pressed, he reveals that he doesn't quite really, truly, honestly believe that about me himself. And he and the staff of RDFRS would just love to dismiss those who express similar sentiments to me as trolls, malcontents and bad apples. And they're not getting to - because it just isn't true.

We're intelligent, articulate, sensible, thoughtful and informed - and we regard RDFRS with varying degrees of scorn. That's what REALLY hurts.
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

User avatar
Robert_S
Cookie Monster
Posts: 13416
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: RD.net to be re-revamped!

Post by Robert_S » Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:26 pm

I felt scorned that February day a couple years ago and the way we were treated and later the way we were painted in that angry post of Richard's, followed up by that weak apology, has left me fairly indifferent to him.

The JT fiasco has left the foundation's credibility seeming just a little bit questionable and now the people running the foundation cannot seem to separate the questioner from the question... :what: The one great thing about the Internet's effect on the business culture is that it is now more important to be professional and competent than to put up a good front.
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P

The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: RD.net to be re-revamped!

Post by lordpasternack » Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:38 pm

kiki5711 wrote:Richard asked me to post this note to you LP.
Dear Heather

Apology accepted, thank you. I wish you good fortune in your science degree (I really do think you have ability in that direction).

Now let's get on, and bring this unpleasant episode to a close.

With my good wishes

Richard
Yes, yes, I quite agree - let's affirm that you never did quite believe in your heart the bollocks that had convinced you to ignore me (and also to fail horribly in acting in your own interests) for six weeks. And let's wish for a close to the 'unpleasant episode', which was, for the most part, your own doing. Yes, let's close the unpleasant episode - but let's not ever do anything quite so rash as apologising to me, or anyone, or actually admitting any fault on your side. You sincerely want the unpleasant episode to end - but that doesn't necessarily mean you want to accept a wisp of responsibility for it, after all!

And Paula - I'm sure you would agree, with hindsight, that you could have handled the situation better. Yes - you could have done your fucking job, for a start... The whole point of professionalism is that it gives you a nice set of algorithms to deal with individuals that you might not want to be as sweet as you normally are, on a personal level. And, sincerely, on a personal level, it does bother me that you may think certain uncharitable things about me - but on a professional level - just do your job, and do it properly. You weren't hired by RDFRS to play silly games with correspondents you don't like. You weren't hired to pout about their personal defects, and your wild hypotheses about their motives. And you weren't hired to pretend that this is a valid excuse for not doing your job competently.

With that covered, and having sufficiently demonstrated my sanity by now - I may be able to help you out if you require any further excuses for why you just don't like me, and why I clearly should be ignored. Don't worry, though, it probably won't be too strenuous - Richard's quite simple when it comes to this sort of thing! :tup:

In future though - you probably would be advised to stick to fucking about with the people who don't have the information, wits or wherewithal to complain, bite back and embarrass you. It must be great having an anonymous moderator role, for that sort of thing - even if you do have such strong opinions about the use and abuse of anonymity.
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests