RD.net to be re-revamped!

[Gallstones]

Eh, Dawkins can do what he likes with his site and his foundation. I've washed my hands of both of them. I may listen to him speak at the Reason Rally, but that is something he can do - along with writing books.

Iz funny, people like you, who were deeply involved in the thing seem to have moved on quite well, while I'm still horribly miffed at what happened (especially since the successor forums were a rather unqualified failure and I've essentially lost any contacts I used to have within the former RDF community, it being understood that to my knowledge, the Ratzian I had most contact with there was Gallstones, and that was because she modded me to my displeasure)

• 

Did you... alter him?

No, but I'll give him his money back if that will make him feel better---I do aim to please.

[Svartalf]

My money back? dammit, was I that drunk when I walked in?

[Gallstones]

IIRC, at the time the punishment was the "You can't see your own dick" curse. Unfortunately the afflicted had to have a fecal transplant to reverse it.

[Svartalf]

I'll live with it... I'll just put a rabbit curse on Gall2 to make sure you don't have a night of rest

[lordpasternack]

Resource #1: You. RichardDawkins.net is the most visited website in secularism. It is where secular innovation and secular ideas meet secular people who can and will take action. That’s you.

I really hate that BS line 'Our number one/best/strongest/etc. resource is you!'
Anyway, the first sentence made me laugh. It almost sounds religious.

Isn't it also, like, terminally out of date?

I might have believed that claim in 2009. Nowadays, it feels like false advertising.

Why would a Foundation for Reason and Science let lies and half-truths get in the way of a good story?

12 out of the 25 comments so far have been removed by a moderator. Long live diversity of opinion. That site is a beacon of atheist tolerance.

And lively enthusiasm.

Yeah - that long trail of 'Removed by Moderator' really puts one in the giving mood, doesn't it?

[Gallstones]

I'll live with it... I'll just put a rabbit curse on Gall2 to make sure you don't have a night of rest

Joke's on you, I have insomnia.....hahahahaha.

Wait

[Flora]

I don't know what's going on with RDFRS but it's always struck me as poor public relations that they haven't provided full details of how they spend the money. The last straw for me was when the forum was used for a campaign to raise money and then shortly afterwards it was dumped as though all the contributors were worthless once the money had rolled in. Lots of people supported RDFRS financially but have never been afforded the courtesy of knowing exactly what's been done with their money, despite repeatedly asking for information.

[lordpasternack]

Flora, I've contacted Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby personally, about the UK side of things, and have failed to get a response for 6 weeks now. I asked them what the Foundation does, with particular reference to the Mission Statement, if they could provide this. The query was that simple.

I started off perfectly polite, and have naturally got increasingly intemperate. I even iMessaged Richard right at the get-go to make absolutely sure he was made aware of my query, and that it wouldn't get lost in his inbox, or simply filtered automatically to one of his 'assistants'. IMessage is a feature available on iPhones and iPads that lets you use a person's email address essentially to send a text message to the other person's iPhone/iPad. He turned the feature off for his iThings after I started getting testy - but he is absolutely aware of the simple, easy, basic query I asked him - which he could have responded to himself, or had any of his Foundation staff answer on his behalf. I only asked them what they fucking DO, after all. Still nothing. Still nothing.

The real, big last straw for me was that article up there now about RDFRS US's 'plans' - which includes only the most vague plans, scant detail about what they've been doing, and a barefaced lie and a handful of half-truths. I got a bit pissed off by that. I also got riled by the fact that they banned my sockpuppet (I was never told why I was banned in the first place) - and then deleted all the posts made on that account, purely to spite me. In my anger I iMessaged Richard and called him a charlatan and a fucking idiot. And when calmed down I told him that I wouldn't and couldn't apologise for the remark because I meant it, and I still mean it - in a slightly rhetorically hyperbolic way.

It's a fucking outrage. I've also been in contact with Andrew Chalkley and got more of an inkling of how deep that rabbit-hole goes. It's even more of a fucking outrage - more so from a fucking Foundation for Reason and Science.

Also, Flora - you and I had our run-ins back on RD.net - but let me tell you, the moderators over there are not fit to lick the shit from your shoes. I mean that, and I hope you're at least gratified by my saying it.

I also said to Richard, candidly, that I used to fancy him, a lot - but I am fonder of the truth than I ever was of him. And added: "I love the truth. Hell mend you."

I am anticipating writing a formal complaint to the Charity Commission in the UK. As is Andrew Chalkley, about another slant of things. Maybe you could join us, Flora?

[lordpasternack]

Here's the initial message what I sent to RD:



I've also been keeping PZ in the loop, so it won't be a shock for him if he hears about people jeopardising RDFRS, and I have forwarded a few emails to him. He already well knew who I was, and he knows the score, fully.



I'm not daft.

[WhostolemyID]

I'm a pretty rare visitor to these pages, and equally rarely visit the RD.net pages nowadays, but I'm drawn to comment. The whole RDFRS "project" seems to have pretty much foundered in the last couple of years. There seems to have been a big drive to "center" things in the USA, but that doesn't seem to have brought in anything like the expected bucks, and brought a shed-load of associated legal and technical problems. The UK website is pretty much abandoned, and certainly hasn't been modified for ages (take http://www.richarddawkinsfoundation.org/volunteers for an example of professionalism). What was expected to be a money-spinner became a pretty huge drain on his resources.

I knew Dawkins reasonably well back in the early 90's through sharing research projects with some of his colleagues (bejasus, I had a full head of hair back then...), and last had some indirect contact about 18 months ago. It was clear then that he still hoped the RDFRS would burgeon into a large and powerful body, acting as an umbrella for both himself, and many other like-minded university lecturers. It was more than just a retirement project - he saw it as filling a role/niche he lost when he retired. I hear he turned down roles in Oxford because he thought this would swamp him. It hasn't!

I don't know what he thinks of what has become of the RDFRS website, but I can't help but believe he's more than a little disappointed.

I'd certainly think twice before donating money. Most charities that I can think of are only too proud to champion what successes they've had, what they've spent your donations on... RDFRS trumpets some pretty fine goals - suppoting scientific education sounds pretty noble... but... but... what have they actually spent money on, when, and with what result?

One problem they still have is all-too-obvious... lots of people involved because they want a job/money/position out of it, and relatively few (not none) who really feel committed.

Oh, and finally, who posted "I bet the thread gets about 70 responses - with about 10 reading "Comment Removed by Moderator". " at the beginning of this thread???? Meh, only 26 comments, and most removed!

[lordpasternack]

I hope he damn well IS disappointed - and, indeed - most charities are proud to be completely, cheerfully, aggressively transparent. And what should we expect from a charity devoted to promoting evidence-based understanding?

As I grossly understated to Richard: "It's odd that you'd be so coy."

[Jason]

As I grossly understated to Richard: "It's odd that you'd be so coy."

He's just playing hard to get.

[lordpasternack]

As I grossly understated to Richard: "It's odd that you'd be so coy."

He's just playing hard to get.

Hard to want, more like.

[Svartalf]

Girl, why would a pretty lady like you even want that old dried up dotard when you could have hotter stuff to warm you up?

[Flora]

Hi Heather
It's all just so disappointing to see that there still doesn't appear to be an understanding that people who donate money (and time/energy) should be given the courtesy of knowing the impact of their donations. Plans are great but where is the update on what's been achieved?

I keep giving to Comic Relief because they are open about the where the money for each year has been spent. They give details about the projects they fund and what difference that has made http://www.comicrelief.com/how-we-help/ ... we-support and here http://www.comicrelief.com/how-we-help/ ... -have-made

These days, instead of donating to RDFRS, I make donations to The National Secular Society as I feel they are well organised and much clearer at communicating what their campaigns are achieving. They publish an annual report each year too: http://www.secularism.org.uk/annual-reports.html

Perhaps RDFRS is focusing much more on the US, which is their choice of course (and possibly a better focus for them) but they'll still need to get better at letting people know what's been achieved with people's money.

I don't have the time, energy or inclination to get involved in anything RDFRS are doing but if they've acted illegally and you're challenging them, I'll be interested to see what happens.