For Reason and Science?

[lordpasternack]

This is the new and improved version of "RD.net to be re-revamped".

I'll post a re-cap of some important substantive issues, and stuff, tomorrow.

Continued from here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... start=1020 - KLR

[charlou]

[Svartalf]

[JimC]

Will there be links to articles such as "I was Richard Dawkin's love child"?

[klr]

Will there be links to articles such as "I was Richard Dawkin's love child"?

I think LP would prefer to replace "was" with "had". Or at least, that's they way it used to be.

[Tero]

So you still did not answer why RD bothers to respond to your e mails. I would not. If I were RD. It seems a bit persistent and stalking like.

[lordpasternack]

So you still did not answer why RD bothers to respond to your e mails.

How the fuck am I supposed to answer that question definitively on Richard Dawkins' behalf? What a silly thing to say...

Maybe because I've sent him nice emails in the past for which he's praised me? Maybe because he liked me from way back when, and shook my hand the first time he met me - and he still hangs on to some of those impressions of me? Maybe because he senses that deep down I'm actually quite sane and rational? Maybe just because he's stupid and naive? Or maybe because he and/or Cornwell thought that humouring me would be a good way to keep me sweet, and weaken the threat that I pose to him and RDF, with the information that I've been unearthing?

But to the point - he responded on that particular occasion, I think, because I'd just taken him to task for him telling someone that my claims were "ridiculous lies", when he knew full well that I had been telling the truth - and that I've always been honest... I think he was badly flustered and he desperately wanted to try to talk his way out of the awkward situation.

I would not. If I were RD. It seems a bit persistent and stalking like.

Persistent, yes - but there is obvious reason and justification for said persistence, for anyone who has had any kind of investment (emotional or financial) in the Richard Dawkins Foundation. Richard Dawkins is well aware of some of the substantive reasons for my persistence. He knows that I'm being justifiably persistent, and he doesn't like it. The same goes for Robin Elisabeth Cornwell - only more so.

Donors deserve to know if there is conflict of interest, if there are hidden agendas, and if any members of staff on the board are persistently dishonest and manipulative to the point of being sociopathic.

[Tero]

Thanks.

I know nothing of the UK atheist community.

[JimC]

Thanks.

I know nothing of the UK atheist community.

Neither does RD, apparently...

[Horwood Beer-Master]

This is the new and improved version of "RD.net to be re-revamped"...

We are all very excited...

[Rum]

'Important substantive'.

[lordpasternack]

'Important substantive'.

What?

[lordpasternack]

Okay - I'm tired - but I just want to make one remark for the time being: the interesting thing about this issue having blown up on Freethought Blogs, is the way in which all the anti-FtB people have cast me into the deepest cynicism, and are interpreting everything I have ever said with the least charity possible - and not really grasping that there are epistemological issues involved here, which are independent of me and/or my personality. Sure, you may doubt me because of what you perceive to be my personality - but are you going to attempt to falsify my statements, or just ad-hom the hell out of me, and leave it at that?

It's fascinating reading the rampant speculation, and the gossip, and shitty ad hominem arguments from all camps… Ultimately, though, this is an issue that will boil down to subtantive evidence - substantive evidence about the issues that are actually important. I may be a complete bastard, and that's quite irrelevant to whether my claims are ultimately grounded in reality, and bolstered by evidence. I don't care what people think of my personality, or anyone else's, generally - I'll do my best to make all my data publicly verifiable (yeah, private emails are difficult to verify unless they are loaded up in front of you, sorry) - and you can reach your own interpretations. I don't care if I get harassed and/or completely misconstrued - I have always been honest, and I intend to be substantive. That is what is ultimately important to me, here. Even Dawkins knows as much.

PS. I have never claimed to be male, and have corrected people everytime they have made that assumption. The only reason that my old profile on RD.net states that I'm male is because that was the default option on the profiles of the (then) newly revamped site in 2010, on which I never participated, and so never "reassigned" my profile. I am shown clearly as female on a number of sites which pre-exist my involvement in the atheist community.

[/vague-and-generalised-gripe]

[charlou]

I admire your tenacity, candour and bravery, lp. I'm no fan of the frequent encroachment into emotionalised/personalised areas of analysis, but overlooking that aspect of your approach to delivery, this investigation is intriguing.

[lordpasternack]

Yes, I do think I need to change my tact. I have been changing a lot, even just over the past couple of months or so - and have been coming to realise that a lot of my behaviour has been well-meaning, but completely counterproductive, and not the best way to make my points. There's been a nudging of conscience, and awareness, which wasn't there before. There's very little guilt, but there's regret, about making people shut down before they've even assessed my basic claims…

This stuff's serious to me, and I regret that I've caused the evidence to look 'tainted'… On the other hand - I'm not the only one possessing the evidence, the evidence itself is unambiguous, I know where I stand on it, and this issue is bigger than me and any of my personal issues.