RD.net to be re-revamped!

[lordpasternack]

And just to go on the record quickly as observing this before they finally complete their 'revamp': Let's make no mistake, it's just not the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science - it's the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Atheism, Secularism and Richard Dawkins' PR People. The US charity doesn't appear to have anything more than a tenuous engagement with actually improving reasoning or critical thinking (well, they don't seem to have more than a tenuous engagement with anything much of note, as their recent risible list of achievements and 'plans' seems to corroborate), or supporting scientific education beyond hot potato of evolution (and to a lesser degree, probably climate change) - and this trend seems to be going to continue to stray further from the Mission Statement and into the direction of campaigning purely and predominantly for atheism and secularism. Fair enough - but don't hang on to some nobly-worded name and Mission Statement, if it reflects very little of what you actually do.

And I suspect that their new motto is going to be 'Innovating for a Secular World' - not, curiously enough, innovating for a rational, ethical, enlightened, or scientifically literate world - just a secular one, thanks. And what the fuck does that even mean, anyway? What exactly does innovating for a secular world entail? How is it innovative? How does it merit being your motto? It sounds a bit like something someone pulled out of a fortune cookie...

[surreptitious57]

And just to go on the record quickly as observing this before they finally complete their revamp Let s make no mistake, it s just not the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science - it s the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Atheism, Secularism and Richard Dawkins PR People. The US charity doesn t appear to have anything more than a tenuous engagement with actually improving reasoning or critical thinking ( well they don t seem to have more than a tenuous engagement with anything much of note, as their recent risible list of achievements and plans seems to corroborate ) or supporting scientific education beyond hot potato of evolution ( and to a lesser degree, probably climate change ) - and this trend seems to be going to continue to stray further from the Mission Statement and into the direction of campaigning purely and predominantly for atheism and secularism Fair enough - but don t hang on to some nobly worded name and Mission Statement if it reflects very little of what you actually do

And I suspect that their new motto is going to be Innovating for a Secular World not, curiously enough innovating for a rational ethical enlightened or scientifically literate world - just a secular one, thanks. And what the fuck does that even mean anyway ? What exactly does innovating for a secular world entail ? How is it innovative ? How does it merit being your motto ? It sounds a bit like something someone pulled out of a fortune cookie

You do raise some interesting points here lord
I think that more should be devoted to promoting
Science rather than Atheism or Secularism though of
course they are not mutually exclusive however. I am not
certain if you have an agenda here but on paper what you are
saying is something that makes perfect sense - really hope you are
proved wrong though and there will be a greater emphasis on matters
scientific - but try not to be too hard on Richard banging on about Evolution
He is after all an evolutionary biologist and the level of ignorance or disbelief on
this subject needs to be seriously addressed and who better than one qualified to do so

[Ronja]

Oi! surreptitious57 - you have a message at the front desk: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 7#p1109937


-- We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming...

[lordpasternack]

I wasn't being hard on him for going on about evolution - I do think it's an important, fascinating area of science - and it offends me too when organised groups driven by various faiths try to undermine it, as well as the science behind climate change, because it is inconvenient for them. I'm just observing that, out on the ground, it's probably pretty much the only area where real support for scientific education is being given by his US charity.

[lordpasternack]

… Alternatively, if they wait a few days, we will be carrying out a major overhaul of the UK foundation website and including an excerpt from the Trustees' Annual Report for 2010-11, outlining the activities we carried out in that year…

You'll note that the 'major overhaul' seems to have involved mostly a bit of text-editing on the site - including plonking a bit of copy&paste from the Annual Report into the 'projects' area (as mentioned), and sticking an Amazon advert on the side bar - as well as a neat little note at the bottom, reading: "Note that the structure and contents of this website have been extensively revised on 21 December, 2011. Updates are an ongoing process."

http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/



No - I don't note that the structure and contents have been extensively revised. Revised, yes - but if it was extensive, it was definitely subtle. And updates are an ongoing process? Are you going at it one byte a week or a half-day a month or something? I can't see that it's even been touched since that 'extensive revision'.

Now, it's not just that I want to carp about how crap that particular site is (I'm sure everyone knows it's crap) - and I was gratified by the fact that you published useful information there - but when you talk about 'major overhauls', 'extensive revision' and 'ongoing updates' - and offer up instead what looks to be one night of cramming and tinkering - it kinda makes you appear just a touch dubious, again. Your mouths are writing cheques that your asses aren't cashing. I mean, why not just be frank with us and tell us you're going to tinker with the site over the next few months, which no-one will be overseeing or reviewing - and you'll get around to it when you get around to it?

Ultimately, all things considered, I'm going to have to reinstate the "could do better" review of them. I'm sorry - but that's just a touch crap, and if it were spotted, it wouldn't fly with any other professional organisation.

Now it's just a wait and see to find out if any part of this blackmail, harrassment and out-and-out abuse that I've just written here will be taken on board - or if they'll simply refuse to acknowledge it because it's me saying it - and Paula may inexplicably convince Richard that they just don't accept criticism from individuals who have been placed on a blacklist for, uhm, various sins contested or never committed… Although, having said that I've hardly uttered a genuinely offensive word in their general or specific directions - I suppose we'd have to agree that I do look a bit shifty, I am a bit weird at the end of the day, and I am just a royal pain in the arse - so it's still alright to single me out for rank unprofessionalism, and spurious claims of harassment and abuse.

[lordpasternack]

And a brief summary, with reflection:

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.

[In] a few days, we will be carrying out a major overhaul of the UK foundation website...

I think we've established by now that this was mostly bollocks.

Now, of course, I also spoke a bit of bollocks - but at least I can claim the indulgence that I didn't have access to the pertinent evidence, since it was, after all, being grudgingly withheld, in circumstances beyond my control (and I wasn't aware where else I could access it) - whereas the pertinent evidence that I wasn't and am not x,y and z, and wasn't attempting to blackmail them (not that it should have even mattered, anyway, given the nature of what I was saying and asking) - was right under their noses, whether Richard in particular bothered to so much as glance at it before mouthing off about me.



And taking into account that:

1) My points were valid, about the lack of information available about them;

2) I started off civil and it was quite obvious (to practically everyone else, at least) what my feelings and intentions were;

3) My motives and tone shouldn't even have mattered, anyway, for them to give a timely response to me, and various others in various places, pointing out a valid and important weakness to address in their organisation, which was completely within their interests to address promptly, anyway

You simply can't help but conclude that their side of the story doesn't make a lick of coherent sense except in light of them being unprofessional, and PAULA playing silly fucking games with ME. (Perhaps she genuinely felt antagonism from me - but then we just loop right back through points 1-3 again, and remind her that she's supposed to be professional, and that it's in everyone's interests for her to resolve the issue quickly - and my conclusion still follows naturally.)

It's still shit that the information wasn't already available (for their own sakes far more than ours); it's still shit that they purposefully refused to resolve my query for over six weeks, and it's still shit that they took them about 7 weeks to copy and paste some bits from their Annual Review onto their site, by way of finally resolving the issue.

And, to the denouement:

- I apologised to them for things I said in error due to my (excusable) misunderstanding, and to Richard for other offences he raised about me.

- They have apologised for nothing. Richard has not apologise for casting aspersions about my character and motives - and Paula has not apologised for her genuine misunderstanding or childish grudge against me - or for taking so long to attend to the issue, when it wasn't exactly an arduous task, and when she was all too happy to respond promptly with nice, chirpy, long emails (more arduous than copying and pasting), to those whom she approved of, long before she condescended to resolving the issue for the great unwashed, and for that one particularly foul correspondent…

No ifs, no buts, no excuses. It just won't wash. You have problems. Now just do us all a favour and own them and resolve them this time - kind of like I did on my side of this situation, if I may rub that in. 

And Paula's apparent penchant for passive-aggression isn't necessarily superior to my preference for aggressive-aggression in conflict, either. Just saying…

[lordpasternack]

And apologies if I'm boring people. I'm still just processing this through my system.

[lordpasternack]

And another pointer - It wouldn't matter if I were fucking criminally insane, sending them letters written in blood, and demanding their heads on a plate... Deliberately dragging your heels for 7-8 weeks to resolve such a small but important issue for everyone concerned, isn't just pathetically unprofessional - it's fucking cutting your nose, slashing your lips and gouging your eyes out, to spite your face.

If the shoe was on the other foot, and Richard or Paula had experienced this from any other organisation - they wouldn't skip a beat in stating so, either. I rather expect that Richard would be the first to suggest that the individual in question should just have put their big girl pants on and simply dealt with it, professionally and pragmatically - for their own sakes, and for EVERYONE remotely interested - irrespective of whether they felt that a particular correspondence was 'strident', or they felt 'hurt', or they had suspicions about the correspondent.

And may I suggest, Richard, that you should expect BETTER, not WORSE, from your own organisation, and from the individual(s) you've granted the esteem of employing - and that you'll do a bigger favour for yourself, your foundation and everyone else, by telling your employees firmly but fairly that this will not do - rather than excusing, rationalising, understating and ultimately just enabling the conduct. And I rather think it's more insulting to Paula, yourself and your foundation if you suggest to her in whatever way that you don't expect better.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

And apologies if I'm boring people. I'm still just processing this through my system.

[Cunt]

I have read everything you have said about it here, and still can't do anything to help. I would like to, really. I have thought quite well of you for a long time.

I had to listen to a bunch of complaints from a client about a co-worker some years ago. What finally ended it was asking that client if they wanted to put their complaint into writing and give it to the boss, or if they just wanted to keep on feeling rotten about the way things went.

They didn't complain to the boss, but moved on to complain to our receptionist at the time, until she asked me what to do about all the complaining and I told her to tell the client that a complaint should go to the boss, then HER boss, then the government if it was to achieve anything constructive.

They then moved on to complaining to the (unrelated) business next door.

So I'll ask you this, lordpasternack: Have you complained to the relevant authorities? The charity commission or the government? I think what you want is simple - satisfaction.

[lordpasternack]

I want to make my complaints publicly, as I am doing here, in the hope that at least some of my message will be heard and absorbed. I don't feel like complaining to the Charity Commission about this, since I'm not sure it's an issue they would touch - particularly now that RDFRS has resolved the main substantive issue I was griping at them about - even if they apparently dragged their heels for 7-8 weeks, and said some spurious crap about me, and gave pathetic rationales for why they don't give evidence to people who don't ask nicely enough, and why instead they resort to base grudge and passive-aggressive spite.

And I want to be taken on board because I do like both Richard and Paula - and, to say it in as many words, Paula is highly specific in being bizarrely, calculatedly spiteful - or whatever the hell her behaviour was supposed to be about. I don't find anything else actively offensive or objectionable about her, at any rate. But I genuinely don't understand and can't abide by certain behaviour directed towards me - and I just happen to be a person who will helpfully tell people in plain English if they do something that rubs me up the wrong way, or that I think is wrong - rather than silently harbouring a grudge, and lashing out a little on occasion, while quietly expecting that people recognise and adhere to my sensibilities, boundaries and ground rules.

[Cunt]

You want to be taken on board?

If I had received this sort of barrage from you, I would not hire you for any role (already wouldn't hire you for any corporate communications role, to be honest)

I actually think something is wrong, lordpasternack. I am concerned for you health with the way you have focused on this. That obsessive focus isn't always bad, but when none there want your contribution, and you insistently try to 'get through to them', I start to wonder: why bother? Hasn't this been a flat-out rejection? What could they say that would make you decide to stop trying?

IS there a solution available?

Is there a realistically possible solution available?

[lordpasternack]

I mean I want my message to be heard, or seen, for what it's worth - mainly because I think I'm right, and it galls me. Perhaps I'm just spilling my thoughts out about something that grates me in principle, and about being dealt passive-aggressive crap - because there's nothing else that I realistically can do to affect the situation. Publishing my thoughts is a legitimate let-out. And I may not be especially diplomatic about my opinions, but I don't think they'd be serene if the shoe were on the other foot, and I don't think it is necessarily the wrong approach. 

I rather endorse the view that PZ put forward - regarding Steve Jobs - who was well-known for being a tactless and undiplomatic bastard on things he felt strongly about - and of course he just alienated everyone, and ruined what looked to be a perfectly good business plan as a result, the silly fellow. You just wonder what could have been, if only that Jobs guy had been a bit more tactful…

…

And then his management style was legendarily combative and critical. Jonah Lehrer has an excellent piece on the strengths and weaknesses of in-your-face confrontation. This resonates with me: I find a little strife extremely invigorating, and I know some personalities like to seek it out and wrestle with it.

At first glance, this cultivation of anger and criticism seems like a terrible idea. We assume that group collaboration requires niceties and affirmation, that we should always accentuate the positive. Just look at brainstorming, perhaps the most widely implemented creativity technique in the world. In the late 1940s, Alex Osborn, a founding partner of the advertising firm BBDO, outlined the virtues of brainstorming in a series of best-selling books. (He insisted that brainstorming could double the creative output of a group.) The most important principle, he said, was the total absence of criticism. According to Osborn, if people were worried about negative feedback, if they were concerned that their new ideas might get ridiculed by the group or the boss, then the brainstorming process would fail. "Creativity is so delicate a flower that praise tends to make it bloom, while discouragement often nips it in the bud," Osborn wrote in Your Creative Power.
But maybe this is a big mistake. Maybe Steve Jobs was on to something when he refused to hide away his disappointment or displeasure. That, at least, is the takeaway of a new paper by Matthijs Baas, Carsten De Dreu, and Bernard Nijstad in The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Their first experiment was straightforward, demonstrating that anger was better at promoting "unstructured thinking" on a creativity task, at least when compared to sadness or a neutral mood. The second experiment elicited anger directly in the subjects, before asking them to brainstorm on ways to improve the condition of the natural environment. Once again, people who felt angry generated more ideas. These ideas were also deemed more original, as they were thought of by less than 1 percent of the subjects. 

You don't change the world by placidly finding your bliss — you do it by focusing your discontent in productive ways.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011 ... ly_wel.php

My bold. (Though of course it's still open to others to dispute my ideas of 'productive', I suppose. )

[hadespussercats]

Re- creativity-- I think it depends on which stage in the creative process you are. I think there's a lot to be said for coming up with ideas in a "safe" environment, then, once you have a bunch, attacking them to weed out the good ones. My sense is Jobs might have done a lot of his "pie-in-the-sky" creative thinking on his own, and came in to his crew looking to them to figure out how to implement said idea (which is a different kind of creative thinking than coming up with a notion for a product in the first place.)

But I don't know.

The fact that they're contrasting "angry" idea-development primarily with "sad" or "neutral" idea-development gives me pause.

Incidentally, isn't "original" like "unique"? Can something be "more original"?

LP, have you ever heard of limerence? It's a concept I stumbled upon recently, and I wonder if it applies at all to this situation. (Reading the various descriptions online, I feel I've experienced it in the past.)

[lordpasternack]

I looked the word up, and I'd say no - that's not what I'm experiencing, at least not now. I've had a lot of conflicting feelings about Richard and his Foundation. Even just in this thread I've gone from feeling suspicious, to feeling fucked about, to feeling righteously angry, to feeling embarrassed and guilty, to feeling irritated again, and returning to realise that, on reflection, I still HAD been fucked about, primarily by Paula Kirby - whether calculated or not.

(And I'm afraid that it does look as though she really was knowingly being purposefully spiteful and grudging. Maybe I should just be a spiteful twat to her in retaliation - except that I unfortunately have more integrity and self-respect than that… )