OPEN LETTER TO RICHARD DAWKINS

[Calilasseia]

AN OPEN LETTER TO RICHARD DAWKINS

Dear Sir,

I do not know if you are aware of the recent events taking place on the Richard Dawkins Forums, and frankly, I sincerely hope that you are unaware, because if not, this leads inexorably to the asking of several disturbing questions. But I shall deal with those another time. First, I wish to address several pressing issues, and seek some answers from you, which, as someone who has served loyally in a volunteer position on those forums for two and a half years, expending much labour in the process, I think I am entitled to ask for.

I discovered, entirely by surprise, that the entire forum was being shut down, courtesy of a unilateral decision that was made without consulting any of the numerous individuals who had expended their time and effort toward building what was, prior to the Pol Pot style "Year Zero" operation performed upon it, possibly the premier place for atheists and scientific rationalists to spend their time and share valuable experiences and knowledge with others. With a membership approaching no less than 85,000 individuals, of which something like 1,200 were long-term and voluminous contributors, providing the very dissemination of knowledge that you claim to be in favour of, the Richard Dawkins Forums was a unique Internet resource, one that provided people with, among other gifts, direct access to peer reviewed scientific papers on a range of subjects from physics and geology to evolutionary biology, and extensive discussion thereof. As a regular participant in this exercise, I am well placed to survey the breadth and depth of the material submitted by regular forum members over my two and a half year tenure, and a good number of those contributors have been roundly applauded for their diligent and patient exposition of concepts that that not immediately amenable to the layman. As a consequence of this activity, which included a huge amount of effort dealing with the oft-repeated and tiresome canards erected by duplicitous ideological warriors for mythology-based doctrines, whose activities frequently provided valuable evidence of the suppurating mendacity lying at the heart of those doctrines, of which creationism was simply the most noxious, the educational value of those forums, as a means of providing the evidence supporting the reality-based world view, the evidence supporting valid scientific postulates, and the evidence of skulduggery writ large on the part of propagandists for supernaturalist masturbation fantasies, was immense. It is no exaggeration to state that the content of the "free fire zones" of the forums, within which I saw considerable action myself, constituted a veritable treasure house of resources for those who wished to rally to your flag.

But now, that has come to an end. We are told that the forums will cease to exist in their current form, and be replaced by - what? Some nebulous vapourware concept erected by one or two individuals who, quite frankly, have not only exhibited zero competence in the field of personnel relations, but who have, upon beginning the implementation of their New World Order, exhibited exactly the duplicity that many of the forum members spent long hours exposing on the part of your enemies.

In what conceivable universe does this constitute a "reward" for those who have striven assiduously on your behalf to fend off the ideological stormtroopers, unmask their devious subterfuges, and expose their numerous acts of discoursive abuse? In case you have not visited the relevant forum sections, this activity includes painstaking detective work with respect to revealing the wholly foetid underbelly of the polished, yet sleazy and meretricious pontifications by professional liars for doctrine. People who might otherwise have fallen prey to the assorted charlatans and fraudsters making up the corporate industry that is professional creationism, have instead been presented with carefully executed, forensic dissections of the lies that this well-funded and politically well-connected industry disseminates, and have emerged from examination of those dissections with a wholly different perspective upon the issues involved. Indeed, several of those have offered public thanks on the forums for those labours, and also expressed gratitude to those on the staff, whose difficult and frequently thankless task consisted of ensuring that such expositions could take place, free from corruption and spin. Indeed, the ruthlessness with which the purveyors of mythology and anti-science pursue the business of seeking hegemony for their tacky little doctrines has also been educational, and the staff have provided a means by which said ruthlessness could be subject to proper critical scrutiny, the falsehoods laid bare, and the fallacies and rhetorical mischief rendered impotent. The staff and members of the Richard Dawkins Forums have performed a valuable public service throughout their endeavours, without the benefit of pre-arranged lecture tours, symposia or conferences, without the benefit of influential backers, without the benefit of political connections, and they have not only withstood vicious ideological warfare, they have prevailed.

As a corollary, the forums became the place to develop rigorous and robust means of combating the professional liars for doctrine, many of whose copy-paste lackeys visited the forums specifically to prosecute their odious activities, only to find that they ran into the brick wall of an educated, aware membership equipped to meet the challenge head-on. As a historical record of the bitter warfare between reason and unreason, the forums, in effect, stood out with a prominence that made comparisons to the classical Library of Alexandria only mildly hyperbolic.

That has now been cast to the flames.

First of all, the staff were told that a "solution" was being prepared to address the inadequacy of the current software to support the demands being placed upon it. That "solution" was supposedly to be presented to the staff, in the form of a test bed, so that they could determine whether or not it was likely to be a success. Requests to provide specifics in this regard were met with little more than curt dismissals to the effect "trust us, we know what we're doing". It became increasingly apparent, as the gap between those requests and the answers required opened into a yawning chasm, that these two individuals did not know what they were doing. They possessed absolutely no understanding of the dynamics of the extant forum, and how those dynamics contributed to its utility value as a weapon in the war against the pernicious evils of the doctrine centred world view. Disappearing into their technocratic rectal passages, these two overgrown schoolboys engaged in Borg-like stonewalling interspersed with the occasional episode of Dalek-esque vomiting of yuppie business school Newspeak, and their patronising, condescending attitude toward the membership and the staff would have been an exercise in chutzpah on a galactic scale if it had been deployed by a professional politician, let alone these two manifestly ill-equipped, ill-suited and woefully incompetent oiks.

Not satisfied with subjecting everyone to the well-known mushroom theory of personnel management, when matters came to a head, their reaction was that of failed dictators everywhere - suppress dissent by the most lead-footed, iron-fisted, Neanderthal means to hand. Dissent that would never have arisen in the first place, if the part-time cameraman and his recycled yuppie sidekick had once bothered to attend to the matter of engaging with the membership, who would have to live with whatever hologram they had dreamed up whilst listening to the music of the spheres of their own verbal diarrhoea.

Now, as a scientist of repute, you have repeatedly exhorted people to make decisions based upon evidence. This we were unable to do with respect to their particular Brave New World, because not once was any evidence provided to us, that their project was something other than a figment of their imaginations. Even if the end result departed markedly therefrom, a few basic screenshots of the work in progress would have been enough to tell us that something resembling a usable software solution was being developed. Even these meagre crumbs failed to fall from their table. Tell me, did these individuals ever provide you with actual evidence that their project bore some resemblance to a working website? If so, why could they not provide us with the same? if they didn't provide you with that evidence, then how can you purport to be in a position to educate people, with respect to developing critical thinking and an evidence-based approach to important issues, having abandonded this yourself and given these individuals carte blanche to do as they see fit?

Now, these two miserable specimens have compounded their incompetence with acts of actual deceit. Including wholesale destruction of the post history of six users, at least one of them a moderator to my knowledge, and the deliberate erasure of moderation logs in order to cover their traces with respect to other, subsidiary acts of administrative mendacity. They acted against these six individuals in a manner that is immediately and manifestly suggestive of spite and petulance, wrought on a scale that was last witnessed being deployed under the hideous spectre that was Pinochet in Chile. Fuller, more detailed expositions thereof are now readily available in the public domain, should you care to avail yourself of them, which, as an individual committed to evidence, I respectfully suggest that you do.

All this would be bad enough, were it the sum total of the damage inflicted upon the community that was once the most vibrant in the secular community. But by treating loyal, committed forum members and staff as if they were little better than floor sweepings, they have inflicted serious and quantifiable material damage upon your entire vision for the future, a vision that those curtly dismissed members were striving to work for on your behalf. They have tainted that vision, and moreover, exposed you to potentially critical political damage on the wider global arena, by handing, on a silver platter, a propaganda gift to the professional liars for doctrine you have been working so hard to combat. Indeed, these two sorry, woebegotten and lamentably pathetic little persons, indulged with powers and responsibilities far beyond their manifest abilities, could not have done more damage to your vision of global empowerment and education against the pernicious influence of doctrinal blind assertion, if they had been creationist moles within your organisation. The legacy they have left, as a result of being handed the keys to the liquor cabinet of power and drink themselves senseless upon the contents, is one of lasting harm to the very causes you have striven for decades to advance. They have, in short, sabotaged your life's work by their actions.

It is in your hands to undo this, messy, thankless and tedious a task this may be. But to put right the wanton vandalism that has ensued, you will have to act decisively, and take unpleasant decisions. First and foremost being the replacement of these two over-indulged, under-regulated and wholly unfit minions, with people who are competent at the task. Do you have the steel in your being to do this? If not, decades of your labour will be in ruins. The situation is that serious, that critical. You are engaged, for better or for worse, in outright warfare against ruthless, committed ideologues, who will stop at nothing to roll over you, and you don't win wars by allowing the battle-hardened veterans by your side to be subject en masse to a drumhead tribunal, at the hands of staff officers who cannot even command a desk properly.


Yours sincerely,


Calilasseia.

[dylan]

Great post! Agree.

[klr]

Ouch. Do you have any plans to make sure the man himself actually sees it?

[DoctorE]

[Calilasseia]

Ouch. Do you have any plans to make sure the man himself actually sees it?

If this is what it takes, yes. And I am fully prepared to take whatever flak he decides to unleash.

I don't take kindly to dispensing two and a half years of loyal service, writing the best part of two million words supporting his campaign, only to be told that I have been deemed surplus to requirements by the decree of a snotty-nosed little twerp whose mindset is manifestly pre-pubescent.

[DoctorE]

Perhaps we should post this on our blogs eh?

[cowiz]

Great letter. My only reservation is the venom directed at the "part-time cameraman and his side-kick yuppie". IMHO this detracts from the message and may elicit an emotional reaction from the Professor - he is on record stating his respect for Josh and his works, and to dismiss him with ad hominem attacks weakens your arguments.

Just my 2c.

[hotshoe]

And it's too long by half.

Busy man, that Dawkins, need to make it short enough that there's some chance he'll read it.

Sorry

[paceetrate]

I have nothing to add but this:


Go Cali, go!

[hackenslash]

Stunning piece of work, although I also feel that the comments levelled at the part-time cameraman and his yuppie sidekick detract somewhat from the message. Dawkins' relationship with Josh is likely to close his mind to the rest of the message, which is brilliant.

[Mazille]

Cali, I love you and I want to have your children.

[Calilasseia]

Great letter. My only reservation is the venom directed at the "part-time cameraman and his side-kick yuppie". IMHO this detracts from the message and may elicit an emotional reaction from the Professor - he is on record stating his respect for Josh and his works, and to dismiss him with ad hominem attacks weakens your arguments.

Just my 2c.

The mere fact that I have been able to avoid needless and cheap ad hominems on the forums for 2½ years should inform him, should he be bothered to take note of this, that I don't rush into such things in writing lightly. It's a measure of my displeasure.

[maiforpeace]

Great letter. I hope you don't mind a little constructive criticism?

I must agree with:

Great letter. My only reservation is the venom directed at the "part-time cameraman and his side-kick yuppie". IMHO this detracts from the message and may elicit an emotional reaction from the Professor - he is on record stating his respect for Josh and his works, and to dismiss him with ad hominem attacks weakens your arguments.

Just my 2c.

He dedicated his book to Josh so I would be cautious of how you criticize him.

and

And it's too long by half.

Busy man, that Dawkins, need to make it short enough that there's some chance he'll read it.

Sorry

Additionally some of your sentences are very long and make it hard to read. Keep it a bit simpler if you can.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

Perhaps if you were to post this in the current incarnation of the never-ending open thread over at Pharyngula, it may grab some wider attention?


Just a thought.

[Wondering Fart]

H'whoah . . .