First reaction by Richard Dawkins.

[Stephen]

This is fucking bizarre.

[Don't Panic]

I do talk with Richard now and then, but they are brief missives by email. We have never discussed this new forum in any way. I doubt that he's concerned at all about it -- he is not the internet monitor.

I have mentioned to him that the forum archives should be preserved. It's his understanding that they will be -- barring any technical issues. We're talking about it, anyway, and I'm sure that if there is no problem, there will be a clarification made.

The archives being preserved, at least online, seems to be ruled out in the initial letter about the new site, members were given 30 days notice to preserve what they wanted before the forum was removed.

[Fallible]

hurrah, hurrah, hurrah, it's pzmyers!!!


who he?

He's the one off Wayne's World. And Shrek.

[Flora]

Hi PZ

The (ex) RD forum staff have a letter composed for Richard. I'll send it to him soon and I'll include you in the copies.

[klr]

I do talk with Richard now and then, but they are brief missives by email. We have never discussed this new forum in any way. I doubt that he's concerned at all about it -- he is not the internet monitor.

I have mentioned to him that the forum archives should be preserved. It's his understanding that they will be -- barring any technical issues. We're talking about it, anyway, and I'm sure that if there is no problem, there will be a clarification made.

The archives being preserved, at least online, seems to be ruled out in the initial letter about the new site, members were given 30 days notice to preserve what they wanted before the forum was removed.

Indeed. And this directly contradicted the explicit public assurance on this point, an assurance that had been given only a couple of weeks before in response to repeated requests for clarification.

What the staff and the users were presented with was utterly different to what had been promised. There had been serious search and performance issues for about 7 months, and people were looking for some sign that these problems would be resolved. Only at the last minute did they find out that they had 30 days and a very limited search to find and save what they wanted, before everything was removed for good.

[Simon_Gardner]

We are all wrong and one person is right.

Wouldn’t be the first time.

[MolotovNomNom]

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".

I haven't really commented much on the matter, butI have to agree with Drl2.

Most, if not, all of us understand that it is Richard's site. In fact, I was hoping something like their idea would have happened sooner (without the exclusion of the forum of course-but that's my preference); however, the handling of it felt like the tech staff said "fuck you" to the moderating team and the supporters of the site and its ideas at large.

Richard's letter did not help with his taking one side entirely and ignoring the cool-headed concerns. going by his comments and his trust in Josh, I highly doubt he will change his view on the members who left and how the situation was handled. But tell me, did they not expect some vitriol and backlash? It's the damn internet- in a fucked up type of way, that much is going to happen on a forum; however I say to Mr. Dawkins, that is still not an excuse for having the negative comments gloss over the cool-headed ones when forming your opinion on the matter. Especially when said comments are made on a different site. You're a damn celebrity, you are going to get love and hate. But this is not the way you handle people who support the same views as you and look to you in a high way.

Again, we understand the fact that it is Richard's site and henceforth he can do what the fuck he wants to do with it as long as the members are not required to pay. That's not an issue. The issue is the handling.

Whether Richard came here and quote-mined us or if it was Josh feeding him BS is of no concern to me. I expected a better and more rational reaction from Richard.

Do I hate Dawkins now? No, and I never really adored him or anything. i just respected his efforts for science and reason. Still do, but just a little less.

There, I have spoken.

[life]

Dear PZ Myers,

with all due respect, backstabbing those moderators and erasing their complete posting history is way over the top.
Banning their accounts -if anything- but keeping their contextual contributions intact would have served the purpose sufficiently.
That's the only thing I should actually comment on. It is fact someone with admin-rights deleted their content and I don't see where this is anything different than burning books just because the author of those used some 'inappropiate' language.

I do not disrespect Dr. Dawkins but I do have some negative feelings towards his minion(s) and how they handled the issue because of the stated above.
I'm merely disappointed. I'm not whining because things change.

Thanks

[Flora]

I'm a "celebrity" now? Heh. I'm a guy with a blog, with absolutely zero influence over Josh, and no obligations in return.

Although I am a little miffed. I've seen the traffic numbers on RD.net from Google Analytics, and it gets about 1/2 to 2/3 of the traffic of Pharyngula (and sorry to inform you of the diminution of your status further still, but the forums only got about 1/4 of the traffic of the whole site). And you guys keep talking about how RD.net is the biggest.

We've been tracking data on forums since last October and have the stats to show that the RD forum has become the busiest atheist forum on the Internet. Feel free to PM me for the evidence and I'll send it to you. We've also tracked comments and posts on the RD front page and forum. On average, the forum has had about 3,000 posts per day and the front page gets between 1/8 and 1/10 of that in comments. If you just look at the forum posts that focus on Dawkins, Reason and Science, these amount to an average of 2,000 per day.

[Mazille]

Dear PZ Myers,

with all due respect, backstabbing those moderators and erasing their complete posting history is way over the top.
Banning their accounts -if anything- but keeping their contextual contributions intact would have served the purpose sufficiently.
That's the only thing I should actually comment on. It is fact someone with admin-rights deleted their content and I don't see where this is anything different than burning books just because the author of those used some 'inappropiate' language.

Which none of us did.

[fredbear]

hurrah, hurrah, hurrah, it's pzmyers!!!


who he?

He's the one off Wayne's World. And Shrek.

ass sphincter says what?

[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.

No I think PZ is his own man and came to have a look for himself.

Also, despite his protestations to the contrary on his blog, I suspect he is a bit of a fan of drama

Richard however has gone totally off the deep end and selectively quoted 3-4 posts from on here, after everything had happened and now appears to be implying that every member of his forums was unmitigated scum that deserved everything they got.

After reading his post on RDF.net I have come t the distinct impression that being a member on his own forums has taught me to think about things a little more clearly and rationally than he is able to. Certainly that level of creative quote mining and mis-characterization would

have been shot down in flames had a creationist attempted to use it on the old forums.

The whole post seems to be a bit of a whine that some nasty people said bad things about his friend.

As the great Stephen Fry says 'Oh, you're offended? so fucking what? it's nothing more than a whine'

I would love to loose this argument, time will tell.

[Fallible]

hurrah, hurrah, hurrah, it's pzmyers!!!


who he?

He's the one off Wayne's World. And Shrek.

ass sphincter says what?

What?

[pzmyers]

I'm a "celebrity" now? Heh. I'm a guy with a blog, with absolutely zero influence over Josh, and no obligations in return.

Although I am a little miffed. I've seen the traffic numbers on RD.net from Google Analytics, and it gets about 1/2 to 2/3 of the traffic of Pharyngula (and sorry to inform you of the diminution of your status further still, but the forums only got about 1/4 of the traffic of the whole site). And you guys keep talking about how RD.net is the biggest.

We've been tracking data on forums since last October and have the stats to show that the RD forum has become the busiest atheist forum on the Internet. Feel free to PM me for the evidence and I'll send it to you. We've also tracked comments and posts on the RD front page and forum. On average, the forum has had about 3,000 posts per week and the front page gets between 1/8 and 1/10 of that in comments. If you just look at the forum posts that focus on Dawkins, Reason and Science, these amount to an average of 2,000 per week.

I trust your numbers...but I get between 1000 and 2000 comments per day. Just sayin'.

[Flash]

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.

So much for selective attention on Dawkins' part.