Announcement about RDF Part 2.

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

Well let's wait until we find out what Richard does and doesn't know.

[debunk]

Well let's wait until we find out what Richard does and doesn't know.

I don't think it's likely that we'll ever find out what he knows.

[95Theses]

There's only a few outcomes of all this IMO...

Either;

a) RD finally learns the truth and tries to reach out to the adrift community somehow with an apology or something (least likely)

b) RD already knows the truth and doesn't give a fuck (most likely)

c) Josh will do a good enough cover up the RD will never know what happened, at least in full (this could happen, at least he could spin it the right way)

or (for your amusement)

d) Josh and Chalkers get attacked by a bear who proceeds to use their crotch as his favourite chew toy

*uh-oh! I better take that back or they might quote mine me too and say its all my fault!*

BB IZ WATCHUN U!

All the info is out there. Some people are still stuck on this idea that Richard just needs to be pointed to the right story. He's a grown up, a tech savvy grown up at that, I don't buy the conspiracy about Josh spoon feeding the interwebz to him. To be fair, my idol worship phase was waning anyway, but this has nicely nudged me over the edge.

his main problem now is that hundreds of us have honed our critical thinking on his own damn forums, so when he tries to post quote mines and mis-characterizations that even a creationist would be embarrassed about (well some of them anyway) there are a shit load of us here to call him on it, and post the evidence publicly.

I've already linked my exposition of the quote mines showing links to the actual posts they came from on rationalia to Pharyngula and JREF. Atheists aren't mindless idiots generally, they tend to look at the evidence, and the evidence is against him on this one.

He's making himself look worse not better posting the crap he is.

[GeneticJen]

Option C.

[Robert_S]

I'm not turning on anybody, so don't accuse me of such. Now from reading this thread I see that there is yet another side to this. I don't know what to think anymore about who is doing what and why it was done. You know what? Maybe Richard is wrong. I don't know. I don't know the whole story in regard to this and I also don't appreciate the implication that I am blindly siding with Richard. At this point, it looks like both sides have acted ridiculously. That's all I can say.

Julie

Richard sure is wrong. The question is whether he has been misinformed (which I doubt) or knows what's happened and doesn't care (which is even worse).

I don't think he groks online communities at all. He certainly has little experience with them. I remember him saying he had seen goatse and didn't know what it was. That is like a pedestrian who has never been or seen anyone get splashed by a car running over through a puddle. It speaks of inexperience on a grand scale.

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

You know what? Let's just say that for the sake of argument Richard is 100% wrong. If that's the case, does that give us license to act like middle school kids about it? Whether it's Richard, Josh, or anybody else who's wrong, let's set the example and act like adults. Let's be civil about this. I suspect that this is still unfolding and that we'll find out more over the next few days.

I agree that something does not add up, but I want to impart some wisdom that my father has given me whenever I witness a conflict to which there is no clear answer:

Imagine that you and several others have seen a car accident. When police ask you what happened, you say that you saw the guy in the Toyota speeding at 90 miles an hour. He was wrong, he totaled the other guy's Chevy, he should have his ass sued. Someone else is asked what happened: That person says they saw the guy in the Chevy drinking Vodka and talking on his cell phone. The guy in the Toyota was obviously speeding to try to get out of the way of the drunken cell-phone guy. Ask yet another person, and they say that both people in both cars were trashed. Ask someone else, and they insist that they saw someone plant something in the middle of the road to cause the car wreck. Ask someone else...

And it goes on like that. When something like this unfolds, it really is like witnessing a car accident. Everything happens so fast that it isn't always clear what exactly happened. Maybe this is a case of both sides being drunk at the wheel. Maybe this is a case of one side causing the whole accident. Maybe this is a case of... and it goes on like that.

Julie

[life]

85000 members and 100-200 post about it.
That's what... less than 0.25%?

I'd say we cannot make that big of a wave for him to care much more than he already did

And I really hope I'm utterly naive by stating this

[HughMcB]

I'm not turning on anybody, so don't accuse me of such. Now from reading this thread I see that there is yet another side to this. I don't know what to think anymore about who is doing what and why it was done. You know what? Maybe Richard is wrong. I don't know. I don't know the whole story in regard to this and I also don't appreciate the implication that I am blindly siding with Richard. At this point, it looks like both sides have acted ridiculously. That's all I can say.

Julie

Julie, don't be so naive, don't think that there is some hope that this is all some big misunderstanding.

Josh and Chalkers fucked us over (this is well documented and we know this is FACT), Richard is either fully aware of this and doesn't care, or he's so wrapped up in timonenfail's lies that he fucking thinks we're all a bunch of ignorant pricks.

Either way WE are NOT to blame.

[klr]

You know what? Let's just say that for the sake of argument Richard is 100% wrong. If that's the case, does that give us license to act like middle school kids about it? Whether it's Richard, Josh, or anybody else who's wrong, let's set the example and act like adults. Let's be civil about this. I suspect that this is still unfolding and that we'll find out more over the next few days.

I'm not acting like a middle school kid, apart from joining in with the odd bit of whimsy. Goodness knows, we need a laugh right now.

There are still some important things I'm in the dark about from a couple of years ago, despite the fact that I was an insider, and I've actually spoken at length to RD.

I agree that something does not add up, but I want to impart some wisdom that my father has given me whenever I witness a conflict to which there is no clear answer:

Imagine that you and several others have seen a car accident. When police ask you what happened, you say that you saw the guy in the Toyota speeding at 90 miles an hour. He was wrong, he totaled the other guy's Chevy, he should have his ass sued. Someone else is asked what happened: That person says they saw the guy in the Chevy drinking Vodka and talking on his cell phone. The guy in the Toyota was obviously speeding to try to get out of the way of the drunken cell-phone guy. Ask yet another person, and they say that both people in both cars were trashed. Ask someone else, and they insist that they saw someone plant something in the middle of the road to cause the car wreck. Ask someone else...

And it goes on like that. When something like this unfolds, it really is like witnessing a car accident. Everything happens so fast that it isn't always clear what exactly happened. Maybe this is a case of both sides being drunk at the wheel. Maybe this is a case of one side causing the whole accident. Maybe this is a case of... and it goes on like that.

Julie

What we have here is a case where some people have massively disproportionate control over the levers of power, and information flow. That's not good.

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

Jebus Cripes, I'm not trying to blame anybody. I see now that the situation was more convoluted. I'm staying neutral as possible until we learn more. End of story.

See my car crash analogy.

J.

[virphen]

I'm not turning on anybody, so don't accuse me of such. Now from reading this thread I see that there is yet another side to this. I don't know what to think anymore about who is doing what and why it was done. You know what? Maybe Richard is wrong. I don't know. I don't know the whole story in regard to this and I also don't appreciate the implication that I am blindly siding with Richard. At this point, it looks like both sides have acted ridiculously. That's all I can say.

Julie

Richard sure is wrong. The question is whether he has been misinformed (which I doubt) or knows what's happened and doesn't care (which is even worse).

I don't think he groks online communities at all. He certainly has little experience with them. I remember him saying he had seen goatse and didn't know what it was. That is like a pedestrian who has never been or seen anyone get splashed by a car running over through a puddle. It speaks of inexperience on a grand scale.

What did you do to earn the great Josh's contempt to get un-friended Julie?

Don't you think there's a very good chance he's just being a jerk?

[Apollonius]

Well let's wait until we find out what Richard does and doesn't know.

I don't care really. He doesn't want a forum and should not have one.

He should have what he wants, a site that promotes his work. I don't care that much about it really. I don't need a book to tell me "There is probably no god..:

[Conny]

Julie,

it seems from your reply and analogy that you don't really know what happened.

And to boot, you are missing the point.

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

I'm not turning on anybody, so don't accuse me of such. Now from reading this thread I see that there is yet another side to this. I don't know what to think anymore about who is doing what and why it was done. You know what? Maybe Richard is wrong. I don't know. I don't know the whole story in regard to this and I also don't appreciate the implication that I am blindly siding with Richard. At this point, it looks like both sides have acted ridiculously. That's all I can say.

Julie

Richard sure is wrong. The question is whether he has been misinformed (which I doubt) or knows what's happened and doesn't care (which is even worse).

I don't think he groks online communities at all. He certainly has little experience with them. I remember him saying he had seen goatse and didn't know what it was. That is like a pedestrian who has never been or seen anyone get splashed by a car running over through a puddle. It speaks of inexperience on a grand scale.

What did you do to earn the great Josh's contempt to get un-friended Julie?

Don't you think there's a very good chance he's just being a jerk?

Possibly. But it wasn't like I ever talked to him. He was just on my friends list. Another possibility was that he anticipated backlash from the RDFers so he just defriended everybody from there he wasn't close with so he wouldn't have to deal with it. I don't know. I'm not losing any sleep over it because it's not like I was ever friends with him.

Julie

[num1cubfn]

FYI, Julie, I think you misunderstood a bit what happened, but I still think you're super ridiculous awesome for calling in to that show and talking about people who ignore science, and I hope you stay on these forums, yours was one of the top 10 names of people I hoped would migrate over here.