First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
- ficklefiend
- Posts: 761
- Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Aberdeen
- Contact:
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
Well, it seems fairly obvious why the forum was locked down. Because the shitstorm that landed here would have been held over there, perhaps without a full moderation team or a mod team that weren't on side.
Interestingly, if it had been over there Richard would not have had those quotes, because anything against a member would have been deleted. It would have been a tough job to manage that anger and censorship though, I can see why it was easier just to cut everyone off.
Interestingly, if it had been over there Richard would not have had those quotes, because anything against a member would have been deleted. It would have been a tough job to manage that anger and censorship though, I can see why it was easier just to cut everyone off.
Set phasers tae malky!
www.ficklefiend.deviantart.com
www.ficklefiend.deviantart.com
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
Who likes my new sig?
Forums are interesting and if you don't agree, you can fuck off.
- virphen
- Posts: 1451
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:37 am
- About me: "that fairy-fingering ass-raping space lizard"
One year own my home planet = 3 on earth. - Location: Orbit.
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
The only FACTS we're missing is exactly what was going on between the ears of Timonen and Chalkers when they were carrying out their rampage (or if it was just one of them), and how much of what they told Dawkins was true and how much was lies and exaggeration.Chauncey Gardner wrote: or are you, like others, knitting together a few events and passing judgement before knowing the FULL FACTS?
The last part aside, we'd be very unlikely to trust a word either of them had to say on the matter, given we know with absolute certainty that the course of events has and is being misrepresented on the RDF forums.
And a lot of what we don't know is irrelevant: it matters not what their reasons were for changing the forum structure. That was never the point. The point is that they lied to the staff, then treated them like shit. Those FACTS are established beyond dispute, unless you want to call every single one of them a liar - because get this, the stories of all of them mesh perfectly.
- kiki5711
- Forever with Ekwok
- Posts: 3954
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:51 am
- Location: Atlanta, Georgia
- Contact:
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
I do.Ilovelucy wrote:Who likes my new sig?

Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
No, but I can read.Chauncey Gardner wrote:How do you KNOW FOR A FACT that is what happened? Are you some sort of omnipotent, omnipresent, supernatural being who knows exactly what happened and exactly what everyone was thinking over the laast few days?Mazille wrote:We know for a fact that this was not what happened and if you bothered to look at the large part of the very first, now deleted criticism-thread, which has been saved by a number of ex-members and is freely available on this very forum you would know that too.Chauncey Gardner wrote: incidentally...Richard didn't connect the quote-mine from here as "the reason" the forum was suddenly shut down...he was using it as an illustrative example of the type of idiots they are dealing with...he clearly says This (the forum was shut down) is purely and simply because of the over-the-top hostility of the comments that were immediately sent in.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if those same idiots posted the similar vitriolic shit-stirring slurry on the RDF forum before it was suddenly closed for comments.
Keep on sticking to your opinion, but know that it is wrong.
or are you, like others, knitting together a few events and passing judgement before knowing the FULL FACTS?
Have I not just linked you to the place where it all started? Is there not another, longer copy of it around here? See for yourself man. Don't trust me, trust the evidence. As it happens, it seems like it tells my (and the other staff's) version of the story.
- Chauncey Gardner
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:50 pm
- About me: Dubliner.
- Contact:
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
I fixed that for you.klr wrote:And therein lies a massive problem. They haven't told us yet won't tell us.Chauncey Gardner wrote: ...
YOU DON'T KNOW WHY they backtracked on their promise to keep the forum alive and pulled the plug. YOU ARE SPECULATING.
that still doesn't justify or excuse the irrational kangaroo court style attack on richard and the RDF team.
Last edited by Chauncey Gardner on Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Robert_S
- Cookie Monster
- Posts: 13416
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
- About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.
- Location: Illinois
- Contact:
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
Not necessarily. If the Mod team were let in on the decision process, then many of us could have adjusted and, after venting our dissatisfaction, finished up our threads and started looking forward to whatever it is that's on its way.ficklefiend wrote:Well, it seems fairly obvious why the forum was locked down. Because the shitstorm that landed here would have been held over there, perhaps without a full moderation team or a mod team that weren't on side.
Interestingly, if it had been over there Richard would not have had those quotes, because anything against a member would have been deleted. It would have been a tough job to manage that anger and censorship though, I can see why it was easier just to cut everyone off.
I mean, a little respect goes a long way.
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P
The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange
-Mr P
The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange
- virphen
- Posts: 1451
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:37 am
- About me: "that fairy-fingering ass-raping space lizard"
One year own my home planet = 3 on earth. - Location: Orbit.
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
Meh. Nothing justifies your totally irrational inability to grasp any of the massive amount of evidence that has been presented as to exactly what did take place.Chauncey Gardner wrote: that still doesn't justify or excuse the irrational kangaroo court style attack on richard and the RDF team.
- Tortured_Genius
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:55 am
- Contact:
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
Completely OT, but it has to be said: Kiki, I love your avatar - the bear is sooo cute!!!kiki5711 wrote:I do.Ilovelucy wrote:Who likes my new sig?

Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
Seeing that RD is online now, I sent this.


- Fallible
- Posts: 336
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:59 pm
- About me: pronoun; the objective case of I, used as a direct or indirect object.
- Location: Scouseland
- Contact:
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
Rather than instructing me to listen to myself, you might consider reading what I said more closely. I said I didn't see this 'rick rolling'. The reason I said that was to make the point that therefore I don't automatically assume it happened, to distinguish between those things which I saw first-hand and those which I have only read reports about. Certainly, I saw a poster or two on this forum warn others that their attempts to archive the site had led to this outcome. But never have I said that I believe it happened - I was not there to see it. Perhaps I should have spelled it out in far simpler terms. I've not speculated on anything. You've simply half-read what I've said, taken it and run off with it somewhere that it was never intended to go. Are you paying any attention at all?Chauncey Gardner wrote: listen to yourself. How do you know that wget (the most common method of mirroring a site) didn't pick up on a form posted link to an astley video? is it because it "fits" with your irrational take on events? It is easier for you to speculate that Josh and his team secretly redirected wget to a rick astley video, while laughing manically and stroking his white cat?
Please try to keep calm. I have not speculated. The reason given for the read-only move was that they could no longer trust their own moderators. Dawkins', I believe, were the imaginary insults launched. Your speculation which, as far as I can tell, emanated from some point deep within your lower digestive regions, was that 'members with privileges caused havoc'. That is not only speculation, but lazy speculation, easily put right by a bit of effort.YOU DON'T KNOW WHY they backtracked on their promise to keep the forum alive and pulled the plug. YOU ARE SPECULATING.
Please try to keep focused. He says that over-the-top comments were immediately 'sent in', apparently referring to messages on the RDF, and yet the only things he quotes are snippets of messages posted on this forum.incidentally...Richard didn't connect the quote-mine from here as "the reason" the forum was suddenly shut down...he was using it as an illustrative example of the type of idiots they are dealing with...he clearly says This (the forum was shut down) is purely and simply because of the over-the-top hostility of the comments that were immediately sent in.
Your inaccurate opinions are easily rectified if you bothered to spend a couple of minutes checking the actual situation.It wouldn't surprise me in the least if those same idiots posted the similar vitriolic shit-stirring slurry on the RDF forum before it was suddenly closed for comments.
This certainly is incredible. Perhaps if you can manage haul yourself out of the bathtub of lukewarm self-satisfaction you appear to have immersed yourself in for a second, you can find my one and only comment on the criticism thread, and therefore discover that my 'so-called 1st hand knowledge' is in fact first-hand. Alternatively, feel free to keep screeching your obvious misunderstandings all over the shop. Incidentally, I have not claimed belief in either of those two options - you appear to be embellishing, as though the facts are not enough. Not very rational.Of course, that would spoil your so-called 1st hand knowledge of everything that happened. So it's easier for you to believe that Richard is lying or Richard has been lied to by Josh.
incredible.
Don't be afraid of what they'll say.
Who cares what cowards think anyway?
They will understand one day,
One day. - Yann Tiersen

Who cares what cowards think anyway?
They will understand one day,
One day. - Yann Tiersen

- Chauncey Gardner
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:50 pm
- About me: Dubliner.
- Contact:
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
no. you just linked to a deleted thread on RDF. you have no idea if "that's where it all started". If you're so keen on evidence...why don't you wait until you hear a full explanation and the full details instead of cheerleading the kangaroo court style rants?Mazille wrote:No, but I can read.Chauncey Gardner wrote:How do you KNOW FOR A FACT that is what happened? Are you some sort of omnipotent, omnipresent, supernatural being who knows exactly what happened and exactly what everyone was thinking over the laast few days?Mazille wrote:We know for a fact that this was not what happened and if you bothered to look at the large part of the very first, now deleted criticism-thread, which has been saved by a number of ex-members and is freely available on this very forum you would know that too.Chauncey Gardner wrote: incidentally...Richard didn't connect the quote-mine from here as "the reason" the forum was suddenly shut down...he was using it as an illustrative example of the type of idiots they are dealing with...he clearly says This (the forum was shut down) is purely and simply because of the over-the-top hostility of the comments that were immediately sent in.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if those same idiots posted the similar vitriolic shit-stirring slurry on the RDF forum before it was suddenly closed for comments.
Keep on sticking to your opinion, but know that it is wrong.
or are you, like others, knitting together a few events and passing judgement before knowing the FULL FACTS?
Have I not just linked you to the place where it all started? Is there not another, longer copy of it around here? See for yourself man. Don't trust me, trust the evidence. As it happens, it seems like it tells my (and the other staff's) version of the story.
- Horwood Beer-Master
- "...a complete Kentish hog"
- Posts: 7061
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:34 pm
- Location: Wandering somewhere around the Darenth Valley - Kent
- Contact:
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
Just thought I'd bump this, since I got no reply before.Horwood Beer-Master wrote:We may not have first-hand accounts of what was going on with Josh or Richard in terms of behind the scenes decision-making while all this was happening - none of us were "sitting beside" them irl. But we do have multiple, mutually-supporting first-hand accounts of how Josh treated forum staff/members.Chauncey Gardner wrote:erm...I hope it's not too embarrassing for you if I point out that YOU DON'T KNOW THE FACTS. blog posts by peter harrison or others does NOT constitute FACT.....they are OPINIONS klr....they are 3rd party accounts by people who weren't event there...you know....a bit like the bible. And I hope that irony doesn't fly over your head.klr wrote:Please read the facts first - they are readily available here and elsewhere - and don't rely on the official line.
I wasn't sitting beside josh for the last week. I wasn't sitting beside richard when he was writing his recent letter about things. I HAVE read a lot of different opinions from many sides....e.g. richard, josh, people who are spouting seriously shitty slurs against the rdf team and richard and others who are clearly upset and are presenting how they see things.
Seriously guys....go for a long walk at the weekend...and think about how petulant and irrational many of you are coming across.
by the way, re-posting other people's opinions and presenting them as FACTS is not smart or rational. unless you have been sitting beside Josh and richard all week this week and have OBSERVED what happened....please don't insult people on here by posting like that....at least have the courtesy to be RATIONAL......for example..try prefacing opinion by something like "as I understand it..."
How is this not good enough for you?

- Robert_S
- Cookie Monster
- Posts: 13416
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
- About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.
- Location: Illinois
- Contact:
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
It is not a trial.Chauncey Gardner wrote:I fixed that for you.klr wrote:And therein lies a massive problem. They haven't won't tell us.Chauncey Gardner wrote: ...
YOU DON'T KNOW WHY they backtracked on their promise to keep the forum alive and pulled the plug. YOU ARE SPECULATING.
that still doesn't justify or excuse the irrational kangaroo court style attack on richard and the RDF team.
Richard is free to join here and defend himself. He is free to post on any other blog or anywhere else on the net.
I, and I think everyone else, is not out to take from Richard what is his, but to reclaim what is ours that we trusted him with.
I like Kangaroos and take offense to your derogatory use of that fine and majestic marsupial.
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P
The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange
-Mr P
The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange
- ozewiezeloose
- Account Suspended at Member's Request
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:19 pm
Re: First reaction by Richard Dawkins.
That's where THEY claim it all started.Chauncey Gardner wrote:no. you just linked to a deleted thread on RDF. you have no idea if "that's where it all started". If you're so keen on evidence...why don't you wait until you hear a full explanation and the full details instead of cheerleading the kangaroo court style rants?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests