First reaction by Richard Dawkins.

[Conny]

The irony being that for the most part, the thread on RD.net consisted of considered posts, mostly saying that it sounded like a bad idea that would remove a lot of the community feel, but they were waiting to see how the new setup looked before making a final judgment. It wasn't until the reasonable responses went down the memory hole and the forum was locked that the bile started to flow. Of course, Richard never got to see the initial reactions of the people who visited his site day-in-day-out.

I was going to write something like this as well. All those posts of most of us, with initial considerate comments and mere questions are now lost. They don't appear anywhere on the RD forum. Who knows how biased the reporting on JT's part was...only he does. I hope they both realise what he has done. The whole scenario is pitiful. I feel even more miserable now.

[M]

I do think PZ has an inkling of why feelings have run so high. After all, most of the strong remarks were made by people trying to defend their friends; friends whose valued posts were deleted, friends whose many hours of work were recognised with "OK. Bye." Now he sticks up for his friend and that is how it should be. Human.

[I'm With Stupid]

We are all wrong and one person is right.


..it seems.

To be fair, the comments on PZ's blog (from people who aren't members here) all seem to be pretty one-sided in our favour too. As Richard Dawkins should know, when people are presented with the facts, it all becomes very obvious.

[floppit]

The pathetic thing is it focusses on the absolute worst of the reaction, while completely ignoring all the perfectly calm, rational expressions of frustration and concern made by hundreds of people.

You know what - this has to be said, RD has been picking the juicy bits from whatever religion or foe he takes on, surely to god you didn't think a different approach would be taken over this? Has anyone seriously thought that the emails of vitriol was all he ever got from believers? Didn't you see his response to liberal christians after a nut job fundy spouted drivel re Haiti? The real irony is his accusation of ludicrously hyperbolic animosity, something, on occasion levelled at his approach to theism.

Anyway - for those who the above seriously offends, go for it - I would have gone pop if I didn't say it eventually.

I actually did not agree with Dawkins' blog you reference here. I found it callow and without redeeming content. I even said so at the time (just in case you think I'm jumping on the Dawkins hate wagon). His characterization of liberal Christians did not match what I had experienced of liberal Christians (my last girlfriend was a liberal Christian and did not fit Dawkins' narrow view).

Of course though, Dawkins' main concern is reason, while mine is Progressivism (with reason).

I don't think you're jumping on a bandwagon, I suspect there was always a small group getting a little naffed with being sold outrage. Yes, RD is a brilliant scientist - no question but by and large brilliant scientists don't earn what they should, our fault (our as in ours as a society). One glance at how well tabloids sell and the wealth of fundy preachers and any clever bloke can figure out that outrage sells, it sells and sells and sells because people love it. Maybe he is genuinely hooked up in it, but there is also a chance he's just not daft and will continue with what's profitable. I think if all the feeling here makes it out of forum world then his book sales will go up not down because there are vast numbers of people who buy from name recognition alone, even more people who buy into looking down at another group, that group now includes those he describes as:

Even some of those with more temperate language are responding to the proposed changes in a way that is little short of hysterical. Was there ever such conservatism, such reactionary aversion to change, such vicious language in defence of a comfortable status quo? What is the underlying agenda of these people? How can anybody feel that strongly about something so small? Have we stumbled on some dark, territorial atavism? Have private fiefdoms been unwittingly trampled?

Just don't be too surprised if he writes a book on forum sociology.... evidenced with copious anecdotes and well chosen quotes.

[Heresiarch]

Just don't be too surprised if he writes a book on forum sociology.... evidenced with copious anecdotes and well chosen quotes.

He'll have Josh ghost write it for him.

[floppit]

Just don't be too surprised if he writes a book on forum sociology.... evidenced with copious anecdotes and well chosen quotes.

He'll have Josh ghost write it for him.

Ever heard the saying about organ grinders and monkeys? RD is rather bright, I think, I suspect, sod that I bet he retains control over the foundation bearing his name.

[RPizzle]

I had conflicting thoughts about PZ in the past, liking him as an individual, as a scientist and an atheist, but not thinking much of his politics. But wow, he really came through for us here. I think he showed a lot of kindness in coming here and trying to understand our position. That's a hell of a lot more than Richard did for us. Thanks PZ for speaking to us and for putting us on your blog, that's all we needed. We needed our voices heard, because they certainly weren't being heard on RichardDawkins.net.

Anyway, pending further announcements from the RDF, I think this will be my last post on the matter. I've ranted and moaned enough about this already, I'm sick of reading my own posts. Time to move on.

I think it is great that PZ came here, when he really had no need to, to discuss this situation with all of us. If RD would have done the same then maybe much of the pent up frustration would be diminished. However, there is a large difference between an actual discussion like this, and the 'press release' that we received. Why couldn't Dr. Dawkins actually come here and hash it out with us, when someone like PZ, who has no vested interest could?

[Mr P]

I had conflicting thoughts about PZ in the past, liking him as an individual, as a scientist and an atheist, but not thinking much of his politics. But wow, he really came through for us here. I think he showed a lot of kindness in coming here and trying to understand our position. That's a hell of a lot more than Richard did for us. Thanks PZ for speaking to us and for putting us on your blog, that's all we needed. We needed our voices heard, because they certainly weren't being heard on RichardDawkins.net.

Anyway, pending further announcements from the RDF, I think this will be my last post on the matter. I've ranted and moaned enough about this already, I'm sick of reading my own posts. Time to move on.

I think it is great that PZ came here, when he really had no need to, to discuss this situation with all of us. If RD would have done the same then maybe much of the pent up frustration would be diminished. However, there is a large difference between an actual discussion like this, and the 'press release' that we received. Why couldn't Dr. Dawkins actually come here and hash it out with us, when someone like PZ, who has no vested interest could?

Could be testing the water

[Rum]

Quickie here. I think they were right.

I think they could not have done it more badly if they had deliberately planned to upset and hurt as many people as possible in the proscess.

[klr]

I had conflicting thoughts about PZ in the past, liking him as an individual, as a scientist and an atheist, but not thinking much of his politics. But wow, he really came through for us here. I think he showed a lot of kindness in coming here and trying to understand our position. That's a hell of a lot more than Richard did for us. Thanks PZ for speaking to us and for putting us on your blog, that's all we needed. We needed our voices heard, because they certainly weren't being heard on RichardDawkins.net.

Anyway, pending further announcements from the RDF, I think this will be my last post on the matter. I've ranted and moaned enough about this already, I'm sick of reading my own posts. Time to move on.

I think it is great that PZ came here, when he really had no need to, to discuss this situation with all of us. If RD would have done the same then maybe much of the pent up frustration would be diminished. However, there is a large difference between an actual discussion like this, and the 'press release' that we received. Why couldn't Dr. Dawkins actually come here and hash it out with us, when someone like PZ, who has no vested interest could?

Could be testing the water

I think PZ is his own man, and came here of his own volition. He may or may not have mentioned it to RD, but he certainly doesn't need his approval - not implying that you're implying that.

Damn. I wish I'd made an effort to meet him when he was in Galway recently. It might have been easier to get his attention here.

[Crazyfrog]

I think it does have a bit to do with maturity. There is change and then there is change. On the scale of things to bitch about, taking down or modifying the RDF chat forum is pretty far down on the list.

No. Absolutely nothing to do with maturity, it's to do with psychology. What happened here really is a classic change management screw-up, go look it up.

I'm not disputing that with you - yes, the administrators could have done a few things to soften the blow, and it would have kept some people from going off the deep end on this.

However, change management doesn't justify every silly reaction by people effected. To me, the reaction of some people on this forum is like someone shot their dog or something. PZMeyer's point is well-taken. It's just a forum, people. As much as we all liked it and valued it, there is a level of outrage appropriate for things like this...

Silly in whose view? You may look at the reaction in that way but there are clearly many who would disagree; are they all "silly"? And change management (lack of) doesn't justify anything; it explains it. A strategy for controlling all the Shenanigans that appear to have gone on behind scenes (deleted posts etc) should have been part of the plan. Quite rightly, people are pissed off because of the way they perceive they've been treated by those with power rather than commitment.

[normal]

Hey, wow. PZ. Nice of you to stop by. I saw your nipple pic on facebook. It is a really deep and excellent picture

[Pensioner]

My view is that PZ came on this site like buffer on a train to take the shock out of a sudden stop. Do you think that PZ has not had a chat to Dawkins before posting? Dawkins as far as I’m concerned is beyond the pale.

[drl2]

And yeah, I know how important these kinds of sites can be to people -- they often represent the only outlet for atheists in a sea of superstitious fools to reach out and express themselves. When I say that they are not that important, I mean that the particular instantiation of a mode of communication, whether it's RD.net or Rationalia or Pharyngula or RaptureReady, isn't the big deal. The fact that you're communicating is what matters. And that hasn't changed.

I agree with the above in principal, and that Richard and those he employs have every right to make whatever changes they want to the site. Clearly the frustration here mostly stems not from the RDF revamp itself, but from the way the transition has been handled, as others who have replied here have articulated. Yes, we'll find (have found) other means of communication, but on that note I'd like to draw attention to one specific complaint that I don't think has been emphasized enough: efforts to inform those who may wish to go elsewhere of an alternative have been actively suppressed. Mods - all unpaid, hard-working volunteers who were being cast adrift - were specifically told not to recommend other sites, and when many of us added links to Rationalia to our signatures, signatures were turned off. A large, thriving community was told, essentially, "we don't want you here, but we don't want you anywhere else either".

[SnowLeopard]

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 0&t=110356