Does absolute power truly corrupt us absolutely? I have been a mod and even had admin rights on a forum before, but I was never the root admin/top dog. I wonder if I would act similarly to Josh or take the high road.Nickel wrote:I was on a forum once, for a webcomic of some renown. One day an allegation that the author of this webcomic was a paedophile surfaced and resulted in swift application of the banhammer from the senior admins for anyone involved, even simple witnesses. Eventually a number of mods revolted against this act of internet genocide and we tore the place apart so badly that the mere mention of the incident at the old forum is a bannable offence.
This whole sorry saga with the Dawkins forums looks awful similar. I believe it is the tendency of moderators (In this case, Josh) to degrade their responsibility to the point of abuse. That I've come to expect. I'm amazed to see Professor Dawkins himself chosing a side, though. I thought he'd come in and wave a magic wand and very diplomatically resolve the dispute.
Granted I'm strictly a neutral party, but it's very interesting to see the flowering of irrationality and snap judgements against a supposedly rational and calm type of people. The only ones who are going to benefit are our religious enemies.
First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
- eXcommunicate
- Mr Handsome Sr.
- Posts: 821
- Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:49 pm
- Location: Indiana, USA
- Contact:
Re: Dawkins online NOW
Michael Hafer
You know, when I read that I wanted to muff-punch you with my typewriter.
One girl; two cocks. Ultimate showdown.
You know, when I read that I wanted to muff-punch you with my typewriter.
One girl; two cocks. Ultimate showdown.
-
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:57 pm
- Contact:
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
pzmyers wrote: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.
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.
Pzmeyers
Can you make a statement on your opinion of the imminent deletion of 10 GB of posts collected over years on wide and diverse topics?
It seems both you and Richard have overlooked this. It may well be all his content legally, but that does not mean it is morally acceptable simply to burn it.
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
He's already stated that he's emailed Judas and Richard telling them he thinks they should keep it available.Spearthrower wrote:pzmyers wrote: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.
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.
Pzmeyers
Can you make a statement on your opinion of the imminent deletion of 10 GB of posts collected over years on wide and diverse topics?
It seems both you and Richard have overlooked this. It may well be all his content legally, but that does not mean it is morally acceptable simply to burn it.
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. - Bertrand Russell.
-
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:33 am
- Contact:
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
pzmyers,
It's Richard Dawkins site to do with as he pleases like it's the priest who is the authority on what should happen to his "crackers" in his own church, right?
It's Richard Dawkins site to do with as he pleases like it's the priest who is the authority on what should happen to his "crackers" in his own church, right?
- hackenslash
- Fundie Baiter...errr. Fun Debater
- Posts: 1380
- Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:05 am
- About me: I've got a little black book with my poems in...
- Location: Between the cutoff and the resonance
- Contact:
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
I just posted on PZ's blog.
Dogma is the death of the intellect
- Tortured_Genius
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:55 am
- Contact:
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
Well I think the RD letter is genuine - probably posted by the admin on Professor Dawkins' behalf, but genuine. (Note: Wrote this before seeing PZM's confirmation)
Disappointing as hell because the feet of clay really are out there for all to see.
Great evolutionary biologist and thinker yes, but I'm afraid his people skills suck.
The error was not with the original letter except in one major respect: It was signed by Josh Timoren and not by Richard Dawkins himself.
You do not send the office-boy to inform the workforce of major changes, even if you personally respect and admire the office-boy, because to others he does not have the gravitas of the boss. Josh may have Richard's full confidence and be authorised to speak on his behalf, but he is not Richard Dawkins and until yesterday many of us had never heard of him.
It all went downhill from there as further actions compounded the original error and, frankly, Josh was just not up to handling that particular job.
Richard appears to blame the membership for subsequent events, as if individuals in a group of several tens of thousands have the same influence as the people who own and administer the boards. That's poor management again, a total failure to predict people's response to managerial actions.
It's not nearly as a bad as some of these sorts of things I've seen writ large in industry or where actual money is involved (and it happens a lot). But it did diminish the respect I had for Professor Dawkins and certainly I won't be going out of my way to back any RDF initiatives due to the risk of it being thrown away by some ill thought out action.
Disappoining, it sucks, moving onwards and not back to RDF anytime soon.
Disappointing as hell because the feet of clay really are out there for all to see.
Great evolutionary biologist and thinker yes, but I'm afraid his people skills suck.
The error was not with the original letter except in one major respect: It was signed by Josh Timoren and not by Richard Dawkins himself.
You do not send the office-boy to inform the workforce of major changes, even if you personally respect and admire the office-boy, because to others he does not have the gravitas of the boss. Josh may have Richard's full confidence and be authorised to speak on his behalf, but he is not Richard Dawkins and until yesterday many of us had never heard of him.
It all went downhill from there as further actions compounded the original error and, frankly, Josh was just not up to handling that particular job.
Richard appears to blame the membership for subsequent events, as if individuals in a group of several tens of thousands have the same influence as the people who own and administer the boards. That's poor management again, a total failure to predict people's response to managerial actions.
It's not nearly as a bad as some of these sorts of things I've seen writ large in industry or where actual money is involved (and it happens a lot). But it did diminish the respect I had for Professor Dawkins and certainly I won't be going out of my way to back any RDF initiatives due to the risk of it being thrown away by some ill thought out action.
Disappoining, it sucks, moving onwards and not back to RDF anytime soon.
- riddlemethis
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:22 am
- Contact:
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
The hilarious thing about his response is the "well liked and respected" person he was talking about was Josh (the person who I described as the slack jaw. . .), must be, OR being in the photograph himself, he has misunderstood about whom my comment was made & was describing himself as "well liked and respected" (which is true).Bella Fortuna wrote:Yep, someone's at least reported back to him some specific phrasing, if nothing else. Too bad he couldn't see behind the heat of it and acknowledge the real hurt and betrayal many feel. Just nit-pick the unsavoury details and you'll never have to address the valid larger issues...
Hyperbolic - yep, guilty as charged.
I told the priest, don't count on any second coming. God got his ass kicked the first time he came down here slumming. - Concrete Blonde
Reason is the servant of the passions - David Hume
You got to be Jesus crazy to pull a move like that. - Victor T
Reason is the servant of the passions - David Hume
You got to be Jesus crazy to pull a move like that. - Victor T
- riddlemethis
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:22 am
- Contact:
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
Precisely, I'm not annonymous either - they have my details. My user name is the same there as it is here. Josh won't be getting an apology for those comments - he's proved with his managment of this that he is a clueless buffoon, that he obviously does not understand the meaning of 'consultative process' (which was promised to the people who worked so hard on his behalf) & couldn't give a second thought to anybody - like any good slack jaw.Feck wrote:I'm not anonymous RD you have my name. I've posted Google street view of my house with links so if you look you know my address my mobile number is
07956 855234 And I stand by my comment that Timmy Fucked the mods and the admin of the forum without even kissing them first !
I told the priest, don't count on any second coming. God got his ass kicked the first time he came down here slumming. - Concrete Blonde
Reason is the servant of the passions - David Hume
You got to be Jesus crazy to pull a move like that. - Victor T
Reason is the servant of the passions - David Hume
You got to be Jesus crazy to pull a move like that. - Victor T
- riddlemethis
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:22 am
- Contact:
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
Double up - sorry
I told the priest, don't count on any second coming. God got his ass kicked the first time he came down here slumming. - Concrete Blonde
Reason is the servant of the passions - David Hume
You got to be Jesus crazy to pull a move like that. - Victor T
Reason is the servant of the passions - David Hume
You got to be Jesus crazy to pull a move like that. - Victor T
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
Sigh.
I want to send Richard Dawkins a copy to Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit.... I think he could do with some reminders.
The thing is.... he was faced with as emotional a situation as the people on the forum were, just from a different perspective. Who knows what version of the truth he heard (and chose to read), and he has had a very strong response to it. That's not hard to understand. From his point of view he sees someone he trusts and respects being attacked so he went in to bat - in a big way. The fact that he hasn't recognised that a large number of people have also reacted in a similar fashion (i.e. cause - effect - emotional outburst) is not very scientific at all. It all feels very high school to me.
I completely understand it's his site and if he had different ideas about what he wanted from it, that's completely his choice and we have to deal with it. We would have, given the time to digest it and being told in a reasonable and adult manner. I don't think any of us would argue with his right to do that.
I don't know how much this is all going to matter to him and the foundation in the long term, however much we might hope it would. It's a *huge* business, and 85,000 members (who may not all leave or withdraw financial support of all things Dawkins) is still a drop in the bucket compared to the number of books sold etc etc. It is just overwhelmingly sad - this is a cause we support, a belief we share and a fight we all want to be united in, and because of some petty actions we feel alienated and knifed in the back by our own. After all, atheism is not about 'being alike' - it is simply the lack of belief, which means a group of people who will be as diverse as their number implies. What a lovely group it was and what a shame to not recognise that.
I hope we can support rationalia and help it cope with the influx of people to its straining servers. Thanks for having us!
I want to send Richard Dawkins a copy to Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit.... I think he could do with some reminders.
The thing is.... he was faced with as emotional a situation as the people on the forum were, just from a different perspective. Who knows what version of the truth he heard (and chose to read), and he has had a very strong response to it. That's not hard to understand. From his point of view he sees someone he trusts and respects being attacked so he went in to bat - in a big way. The fact that he hasn't recognised that a large number of people have also reacted in a similar fashion (i.e. cause - effect - emotional outburst) is not very scientific at all. It all feels very high school to me.
I completely understand it's his site and if he had different ideas about what he wanted from it, that's completely his choice and we have to deal with it. We would have, given the time to digest it and being told in a reasonable and adult manner. I don't think any of us would argue with his right to do that.
I don't know how much this is all going to matter to him and the foundation in the long term, however much we might hope it would. It's a *huge* business, and 85,000 members (who may not all leave or withdraw financial support of all things Dawkins) is still a drop in the bucket compared to the number of books sold etc etc. It is just overwhelmingly sad - this is a cause we support, a belief we share and a fight we all want to be united in, and because of some petty actions we feel alienated and knifed in the back by our own. After all, atheism is not about 'being alike' - it is simply the lack of belief, which means a group of people who will be as diverse as their number implies. What a lovely group it was and what a shame to not recognise that.
I hope we can support rationalia and help it cope with the influx of people to its straining servers. Thanks for having us!
I think - therefore I am atheist
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
Oh yeah... and Hackenslash? you deserve an enormous group HUG for everything you are doing. I see you active on so many forums keeping everyone informed and I imagine you are exhausted and drained by all this.


I think - therefore I am atheist
- Ameri Boi
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:53 am
- About me: Lazy ass
- Location: Lodi, California
- Contact:
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
Isn't the Baloney detection kit a vid on his youtube profile?
"Another aspect of the particulateness of the gene is that is does not grow senile; it is no more likely to die when it is a million years old than when it is only a hundred. It leaps from body to body in it's own way and for its own ends, abandoning a succession of mortal bodies before they sink in senility and death" -Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene p.34


- hackenslash
- Fundie Baiter...errr. Fun Debater
- Posts: 1380
- Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:05 am
- About me: I've got a little black book with my poems in...
- Location: Between the cutoff and the resonance
- Contact:
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
Fucking knackered, TBH.heyjude wrote:Oh yeah... and Hackenslash? you deserve an enormous group HUG for everything you are doing. I see you active on so many forums keeping everyone informed and I imagine you are exhausted and drained by all this.

I'm not the only one, though. Others have worked very hard to plug the gap.
Dogma is the death of the intellect
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
Ugh..Ameri Boi wrote:Isn't the Baloney detection kit a vid on his youtube profile?

So... do you think he scanned other forums for the insult quotes about Josh? or you think Josh did and put together a little package of "look what they did!" to present to him....
I don't like conjecture, I don't like that this has me wondering all sorts of things.... I would rather know what happened. It's just hard to believe that someone I always held up as a bastion of looking for truth, rationality and reason is so unable to step outside of this and look at ALL sides of it ...
:pissed:
I think - therefore I am atheist
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest