RDFRS

[lordpasternack]

I suppose it also gives Richard a good pretext to network with current and potential mistresses.

[charlou]

That potential queue must seem to stretch interminably.

[lordpasternack]

No wonder it keeps him so busy then.

[charlou]

I wouldn't know, does it?

[lordpasternack]

I wouldn't know, does it?

So he says.

[charlou]

Where was that, then?

Actually, scratch that. I don't care.

[lordpasternack]

Where was that, then?

Actually, scratch that. I don't care.

Too late.

http://www.wina.com/play_window.php?aud ... Id=5499140

About 14:30 in…

[charlou]

[Pappa]

Here's a Wiki.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_ ... nd_Science

Great quote from that:

Dawkins found the process of gaining tax-free status difficult. In a footnote in his 2009 book The Greatest Show on Earth he complains that tax-free status is easily gained by religious organizations, but that non-religious ones "have to jump through hoops" to show they are worthy. Despite his success in gaining this status he describes the negotiations as "protracted" and "extremely expensive". He quotes a letter from the British Charity Commission which said "It is not clear how the advancement of science tends towards the mental and moral improvement of the public. Please provide us with evidence of this or explain how it is linked to the advancement of humanism and rationalism." He contrasts this response to religious organisations, which he says are presumed to benefit humanity without evidence, even if they promote scientific falsehood as a number of them do.

[Jason]

Rationalia needs a charitable foundation, and I need a pool.

[lordpasternack]

Yeah - I had a bit of a go at Richard on that general theme, actually. He said the forum was dissolved out of the interest of making a site more devoted to reason and science - the inarguably important topics of reason and science. And we know his rationale was bollocks, not least because the forum had quite impressive sections devoted specifically to reason and science - away from the more informal sections - certainly far more impressive than any user-created content that's been churned out of the current webshite. 

But the thing is, Richard wasn't aware of that, because HE DIDN'T EVEN FUCKING LOOK AT THE SCIENCE SECTIONS - and it didn't even occur to him that maybe he should at the time he found himself uttering this dreck. Indeed, he spent the vast majority of his time reading and posting in the Richard Dawkins section. I actually went to the bother of running some filtered searches through the old forum a month or so ago, and Science & Technology in particular was his least active forum area, with a total of five posts out of over 400, in a thread that had likely been moved from the Richard Dawkins section. 

And then of course there was the scenario a few months back where there was about as much real reason and science content on RD.net as there is meat content in a Tesco Value sausage roll. This was plainly manifest, and ongoing. And he and his colleagues are so zealously passionate about reason and science that they actually needed a kick up the arse to attend to the issue. And all that after the crooning about how the whole purpose of overhauling the site was to be more focussed on reason and science. You were jesting a bit before - but now you're really just having a fucking laugh.

And I'm sorry, but that kind of hypocrisy, that kind of insincerity, that kind of bullshitting - even unconscious - really sticks in my craw. Particularly when it comes from an organisation that presumes itself an oasis of clear thought, reason, scepticism, rationality, evidence-based understanding, and everything else. It's one of the most risible Animal Farmish type things I've come across in a while. I just can't take you seriously anymore if that's on your record. 

Of course there are other reasons why I'm hard-pushed to take RDFRS seriously, but those were/are for other rants.

[PsychoSerenity]

Here's a Wiki.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_ ... nd_Science

Great quote from that:

Dawkins found the process of gaining tax-free status difficult. In a footnote in his 2009 book The Greatest Show on Earth he complains that tax-free status is easily gained by religious organizations, but that non-religious ones "have to jump through hoops" to show they are worthy. Despite his success in gaining this status he describes the negotiations as "protracted" and "extremely expensive". He quotes a letter from the British Charity Commission which said "It is not clear how the advancement of science tends towards the mental and moral improvement of the public. Please provide us with evidence of this or explain how it is linked to the advancement of humanism and rationalism." He contrasts this response to religious organisations, which he says are presumed to benefit humanity without evidence, even if they promote scientific falsehood as a number of them do.

Damn. I'd say that's evidence that RDFRS has a lot of work to do!

[lordpasternack]

RDFRS has a lot of work to do!

Which it most likely won't do. Seriously, if someone actually told me they were officially involved in RDFRS, I'd be suspicious about relying on them to go for a run to the ice-cream van for me.

[charlou]

Yeah - I had a bit of a go at Richard on that general theme, actually. He said the forum was dissolved out of the interest of making a site more devoted to reason and science - the inarguably important topics of reason and science. And we know his rationale was bollocks, not least because the forum had quite impressive sections devoted specifically to reason and science - away from the more informal sections - certainly far more impressive than any user-created content that's been churned out of the current webshite. 

But the thing is, Richard wasn't aware of that, because HE DIDN'T EVEN FUCKING LOOK AT THE SCIENCE SECTIONS - and it didn't even occur to him that maybe he should at the time he found himself uttering this dreck. Indeed, he spent the vast majority of his time reading and posting in the Richard Dawkins section. I actually went to the bother of running some filtered searches through the old forum a month or so ago, and Science & Technology in particular was his least active forum area, with a total of five posts out of over 400, in a thread that had likely been moved from the Richard Dawkins section. 

And then of course there was the scenario a few months back where there was about as much real reason and science content on RD.net as there is meat content in a Tesco Value sausage roll. This was plainly manifest, and ongoing. And he and his colleagues are so zealously passionate about reason and science that they actually needed a kick up the arse to attend to the issue. And all that after the crooning about how the whole purpose of overhauling the site was to be more focussed on reason and science. You were jesting a bit before - but now you're really just having a fucking laugh.

And I'm sorry, but that kind of hypocrisy, that kind of insincerity, that kind of bullshitting - even unconscious - really sticks in my craw. Particularly when it comes from an organisation that presumes itself an oasis of clear thought, reason, scepticism, rationality, evidence-based understanding, and everything else. It's one of the most risible Animal Farmish type things I've come across in a while. I just can't take you seriously anymore if that's on your record. 

Of course there are other reasons why I'm hard-pushed to take RDFRS seriously, but those were/are for other rants.

What can I say, lordp ... you're a sharp one.

[Azathoth]

Here's a Wiki.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_ ... nd_Science

Great quote from that:

Dawkins found the process of gaining tax-free status difficult. In a footnote in his 2009 book The Greatest Show on Earth he complains that tax-free status is easily gained by religious organizations, but that non-religious ones "have to jump through hoops" to show they are worthy. Despite his success in gaining this status he describes the negotiations as "protracted" and "extremely expensive". He quotes a letter from the British Charity Commission which said "It is not clear how the advancement of science tends towards the mental and moral improvement of the public. Please provide us with evidence of this or explain how it is linked to the advancement of humanism and rationalism." He contrasts this response to religious organisations, which he says are presumed to benefit humanity without evidence, even if they promote scientific falsehood as a number of them do.