Times Online- Richard Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans

[Ilovelucy]

I know that this has probably been posted elsewhere, but it deserves its own thread. We've hit the new websites. Same old lies on one hand, but on the other hand, you know they didn't want it to blow up this big. Everyoone, please post links to Peter's blog.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/ ... -fans.html

Richard Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans

Richard Dawkins has something of a reputation for provoking the religious community, but it seems he may have underestimated the atheistic fervour of his own fanbase. Amidst a tsunami of vulgar and vitriolic comments, the 85,000-strong forum on his official website RichardDawkins.net had to be shut down this week.

The implosion appears to have been provoked by an announcement on the website that discussion threads and responses would in future be tightly moderated to help curb irrelevant discussions, frivolous gossip and abuse.

However, the announcement itself created such an explosion of ire that the planned 30-day switch-over period had to be scrapped and the discussion forum locked down immediately. Some members are complaining that their profiles have been wiped out and others have lost access to files and messages that they uploaded onto the website. Not willing to be silenced, many of the former Dawkins fans are continuing to vent their feelings on atheist forums elsewhere on the net.

Chris Wilkins, who has blogged about the row, told me yesterday that one of his acquaintances described the closing of the forum as "feeling like a friend had died".

Dawkins himself is less than sympathetic. In a personal message posted today entitled Outrage, he lets rip at the members of his website:

Imagine that you, as a greatly liked and respected person, found yourself overnight subjected to personal vilification on an unprecedented scale, from anonymous commenters on a website. Suppose [...] that somebody on website expressed a “sudden urge to ram a fistful of nails” down your throat. Also to “trip you up and kick you in the guts.” And imagine seeing your face described, again by an anonymous poster, as “a slack jawed turd in the mouth mug if ever I saw one.

(You will also have to imagine the uncensored version of this extract)

He goes on to ponder what could possible be wrong with people who "over-react so spectacularly to something so trivial" and concludes that "there is something rotten in internet culture" and that he is determined to purge his website of this vicious element. And so the battle commences...

[devogue]

Oh go suck your thumb Dawkins, you cunt.

[klr]

Oh go suck your thumb Dawkins, you cunt.

Dev! You're back with us! You missed all the fun.

Responses to this article are moderated, so be careful!

[virphen]

It seems we are all seeing first hand how the lies of one (maybe two) small-minded git covering his own arse become history.

[Shaker]

It's too much to hope for that any news piece these days would be long enough and would go into sufficient detail to lay out all the genuine and legitimate grievances that so very many people have. Peter Harrison's post on his own blog took nearly 5000 words to do that. I'm not even remotely hopeful that anybody coming to this story cold is going to get any rounded picture from news sources. So it goes.

[Mazille]

I've posted a link to Pete's blog there.

[klr]

I've posted a link to Pete's blog there.

Let's see how long it takes to pass the moderation there (kind of ironic, isn't it).

[Mazille]

I've posted a link to Pete's blog there.

Let's see how long it takes to pass the moderation there (kind of ironic, isn't it).

Yes and yes.

[debunk]

I've posted a link to Pete's blog there.

Let's see how long it takes to pass the moderation there (kind of ironic, isn't it).

Yes and yes.

The comments are up.

[95Theses]

I have the following awaiting mod approval over there :

I think the article misses the point somewhat.

No one denies Richard's right to do whatever he pleases with his own website. People were upset by the heavy handed actions of his Tech guy Josh Timonen and his sidekick Andrew Chalkley.

The original thread on RDF discussing this was vocal but civil. These two then deleted that, banned members and deleted over 30k science posts as punishment for showing dissent.

Then they made the forum read only, removed PM functionality and signatures to ensure that people couldn't swap contact info with friends they had made on the site.

The vitriolic comments Richard highlights were made on another forum, after the wholesale vandalism of members years of effort on RDF, and ar taken out of context and seek to portray only the small minority of what was actually said.

Despite stating in the message to the forum that 'The website will stay open for 30 days to allow archival of members posts' in reality anyone attempting to do so was directed to a rick-roll by the site Admins.

Yes people are up in arms, but it isn't because Richard wanted to change his own site, it's because of the terrible way he has treated many members and staff who have worked diligently for years to further his cause.

[Ilovelucy]

Please tweet the writer Hannah Devlin and link to Peter's article

http://twitter.com/hannahdev

or copy and paste this into your twitter bar

@hannahdev please read these 2 blog posts on what actually went down http://bit.ly/9xwdlP http://bit.ly/drscUe #timonenfail

[Mazille]

Please tweet the writer Hannah Devlin and link to Peter's article

http://twitter.com/hannahdev

or copy and paste this into your twitter bar

@hannahdev please read these 2 blog posts on what actually went down http://bit.ly/9xwdlP http://bit.ly/drscUe #timonenfail

Done.

[Ilovelucy]

Hannah Devlin has retweeted my comment linking to Peter's blogs, encouraging signs!

[Nora_Leonard]

Having just read the article and the comments I think it is quite telling that all the comments are saying the same thing, i.e. "No, Richard has got it wrong!" And then the links to the blogs.

So far no-one is actually posting 'evidence' that Richard has got it right. Which of course would be hard to do as there is no evidence for that.

I know that many members of RD.net were reluctant for this to hit the news, but I'm quietly (or I guess not so quietly, as I'm writing about it here ) feeling that justice is being served.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

I wonder if this article will make the RD.net front page? Normally all articles on Dawkins from major newspapers (whether positive or negative) get posted, but given the near blanket censorship over this whole debacle...