First reaction by Richard Dawkins.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

Sorry, link to Times as requested

http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/ ... -fans.html

I'm going to ask for this to get wider coverage, so that people can comment on it and also respond on the Times site, which is moderated people!

It's not exactly accurate - it blames the proposed changes for the issues, not the handling of the dissent and subsequent behavior of the Admin. Sloppy IMHO

Oh, come on! These are journalists we're talking about. You don't honestly expect them to do anything beyond the bare minimum in investigating a story, do you?

Particularly when it's that strange new-fangled interweb thingy that's at the heart of the story.

[Chauncey Gardner]

Sorry, link to Times as requested

http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/ ... -fans.html

I'm going to ask for this to get wider coverage, so that people can comment on it and also respond on the Times site, which is moderated people!

It's not exactly accurate - it blames the proposed changes for the issues, not the handling of the dissent and subsequent behavior of the Admin. Sloppy IMHO

are you having a laugh?

the article was spot on. it was the reaction to the changes that drove the team to shut off comments on the forum and revoke privileges for certain moderators etc.

the aftermath to the switching off of the comments, regardless of how you dress it up, portrays a very ugly and very unpleasant rabble with a mob mentality that NOBODY would like to have anything to do with.

As an aside, the times article is just the beginning of the ridicule that will be heaped on the "largest atheist community online".

Like I said earlier....the RDF team could have handled things much better, but, the reaction from some has provided the theists and dawkins haters a brilliant opportunity to slander not just dawkins, but, the atheist community.

[Babel]

Sorry, link to Times as requested

http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/ ... -fans.html

I'm going to ask for this to get wider coverage, so that people can comment on it and also respond on the Times site, which is moderated people!

It's not exactly accurate - it blames the proposed changes for the issues, not the handling of the dissent and subsequent behavior of the Admin. Sloppy IMHO

Oh, come on! These are journalists we're talking about. You don't honestly expect them to do anything beyond the bare minimum in investigating a story, do you?

Particularly when it's that strange new-fangled interweb thingy that's at the heart of the story.

You can delete and modify the interwebz to fit your story anyway.

[floppit]

What a pickle....

[Babel]

Sorry, link to Times as requested

http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/ ... -fans.html

I'm going to ask for this to get wider coverage, so that people can comment on it and also respond on the Times site, which is moderated people!

It's not exactly accurate - it blames the proposed changes for the issues, not the handling of the dissent and subsequent behavior of the Admin. Sloppy IMHO

are you having a laugh?

the article was spot on. it was the reaction to the changes that drove the team to shut off comments on the forum and revoke privileges for certain moderators etc.

the aftermath to the switching off of the comments, regardless of how you dress it up, portrays a very ugly and very unpleasant rabble with a mob mentality that NOBODY would like to have anything to do with.

As an aside, the times article is just the beginning of the ridicule that will be heaped on the "largest atheist community online".

Like I said earlier....the RDF team could have handled things much better, but, the reaction from some has provided the theists and dawkins haters a brilliant opportunity to slander not just dawkins, but, the atheist community.

Now you are representing your version as facts, which you can't prove either.

[freethinkerboy]

I don't really see how Dawkins' post is any different to the apologists who say that 'The New Atheists' are just screaming insults without actually looking at what is really being said, why it is being said, and what they did to cause it to be said.

Richard's attempt at an explanation is a joke. The sheer ignorance of the situation leaves me wondering whether he even knew anything was going down, as his post seems to be a retelling of Josh's side of the story. And although I don't want to insult P.Z.Myers, because I appreciate the fact that he has at least attempted to understand the situation, his blog post was no better.

For some reason, people who weren't there when it happened seem to think that people became angry when Josh announced the forum was going to change structure. Obviously, anyone who'd get angry over that is a little loopy - upset and critical, is understandable, but not angry.

Anyway, the level of ignorance would be laughable if it wasn't so depressing. They can't be blamed I guess, Josh and Chalky did a good job of deleting most of the events there so from the outside it would look like people became angry over a change of website design. Fucking depressing.

/snip

Hey, you forgot about Androol!

I treat the two as one. They were both pretty arrogant and refused to listen to advice.

This is exactly my feeling too, and im a bit suprised at PZ blog comments too

still we need to explain again and again that the the restructuring of the website is not what is causing people to be angry, but no one listens lol. If people dont give a crap -- thats fine by me. but going through the process of writing a blog about a problem and not understanding the problem is a bit daft if you ask me.

[95Theses]

I have seen some people speculate about why Josh may have taken the actions he did, and of course only inferences can be made there. However, the basic bullet points that have been repeated across forums with the timeline of events are all basic facts of the situation with numerous lines of evidence backing them up - saved by those of us who were there witnessing the events unfolding.

the more you repeat something or see others repeating it, doesn't make it more plausible. billions of people subscribe to various interpretations of the bible....that doesn't make it more true...

there's no confusion with me. in baby steps...

1. rd.net team announce that there will be changes and the forum will be kept alive for 30 more days.
2. something happened.
3. rd.net team suddenly shut down comments on the forum AND revoke privileges to some forum moderators.
4. people go postal.

you're speculating on point 2. you don't know the full facts. you were NOT sitting beside josh for the entire week...nor were you sitting beside richard dawkins.

I'm not saying that your speculation isn't true....what I'm saying is that it's speculation. Speculations ARE NOT FACTS, mr. samsa. Regardless of how many people repeat it or concur with them.

And I hope it's not too embarrassing for you if I point out that the title of this forum is RATIONALIA.COM which is wordplay on the adjective or adverb RATIONAL....which people used to mean: agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.

there's nothing wrong with speculation, but, It's not reasonable, sensible or agreeable to reason for people to string together a bunch of speculations to draw such drastic conclusions....

It's quite clear to me that many bloggers and posters are quote mining and piecing together speculations and dressing them up as "overwhelming evidence" to satisfy their anger/loss of power as a moderator/immaturity/stupidity or whatever...

I was on the site at the time. I saw the thread, and read the comments on it. I then read Josh/Andrew's account of that thread as being he reason for the lockdown

I can tell you right now I have seen evidence with my own eyes by reading that thread thet the pair of them are flat out lying about the contents of he thread in question.

[ozewiezeloose]

2. something happened.

[...]

you're speculating on point 2. you don't know the full facts. you were NOT sitting beside josh for the entire week...nor were you sitting beside richard dawkins

Oh, FKS!

Update: 2010-02-22 We had intended to leave the forum fully-funtioning for 30 days, but due to the inappropriate posts by some users and moderators, we have decided to leave the forum in a read-only state.

There's your 'something'.

EDIT: Note that it says POSTS, not PM's. These posts can be checked and judged if you follow the links provided by RDF members who managed to save the thread before it was deleted.

[Fallible]

Can't help but feel you're wasting your time pointing out the flaming obvious time and again.

[Chauncey Gardner]

Sorry, link to Times as requested

http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/ ... -fans.html

I'm going to ask for this to get wider coverage, so that people can comment on it and also respond on the Times site, which is moderated people!

It's not exactly accurate - it blames the proposed changes for the issues, not the handling of the dissent and subsequent behavior of the Admin. Sloppy IMHO

are you having a laugh?

the article was spot on. it was the reaction to the changes that drove the team to shut off comments on the forum and revoke privileges for certain moderators etc.

the aftermath to the switching off of the comments, regardless of how you dress it up, portrays a very ugly and very unpleasant rabble with a mob mentality that NOBODY would like to have anything to do with.

As an aside, the times article is just the beginning of the ridicule that will be heaped on the "largest atheist community online".

Now you are representing your version as facts, which you can't prove either.

can you clarify what you mean?

Here's what I said: "it was the reaction to the changes that drove the team to shut off comments on the forum and revoke privileges for certain moderators etc. "

In baby steps:

1. RDF team announce changes and promise to keep forum alive for 30 days.
2. RDF community reacts.
3. RDF team have to suddenly back track and make the forum read only...revoke privileges to certain moderators and delete some threads.
4. Anti Richard dawkins and anti RDF team rants on other websites kick off.

Which part of that do I have incorrect?

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...1. rd.net team announce that there will be changes and the forum will be kept alive for 30 more days.
2. something happened.
3. rd.net team suddenly shut down comments on the forum AND revoke privileges to some forum moderators.
4. people go postal.

you're speculating on point 2. you don't know the full facts. you were NOT sitting beside josh for the entire week...nor were you sitting beside richard dawkins...

How... ...many... ...more... ...times... ...are... ...you... ...going... ...to...repeat... ...this... ...crap!

Just because we don't know everything that happened behind the scenes, doesn't mean we don't know anything that happened at all!

We know the way Josh treated the staff, we know the way he reacted to dissent, and we know he tried to cover-up what he did - it is not speculation, people were there online to witness these things!!!

[Daan]

are you having a laugh?

the article was spot on. it was the reaction to the changes that drove the team to shut off comments on the forum and revoke privileges for certain moderators etc.

the aftermath to the switching off of the comments, regardless of how you dress it up, portrays a very ugly and very unpleasant rabble with a mob mentality that NOBODY would like to have anything to do with.

As an aside, the times article is just the beginning of the ridicule that will be heaped on the "largest atheist community online".

Like I said earlier....the RDF team could have handled things much better, but, the reaction from some has provided the theists and dawkins haters a brilliant opportunity to slander not just dawkins, but, the atheist community.

Only for a short while. Atheism is centuries old and will survive this episode.

[Babel]

can you clarify what you mean?

Here's what I said: "it was the reaction to the changes that drove the team to shut off comments on the forum and revoke privileges for certain moderators etc. "

In baby steps:

1. RDF team announce changes and promise to keep forum alive for 30 days.
2. RDF community reacts.
3. RDF team have to suddenly back track and make the forum read only...revoke privileges to certain moderators and delete some threads.
4. Anti Richard dawkins and anti RDF team rants on other websites kick off.

Which part of that do I have incorrect?

I snipped the previous posts to keep it tidy.
The part where you presume that the reactions were out of line, forcing the admins' hand to close the forum. Equally possible, they had speculated this would happen and planned to shut down the functionality of the forum all along. You weren't sitting next to them, the few weeks prior to the events.
Still, you present it as fact that step two led up to step three.
Now, we're both being pedantic.

[Chauncey Gardner]

2. something happened.

[...]

you're speculating on point 2. you don't know the full facts. you were NOT sitting beside josh for the entire week...nor were you sitting beside richard dawkins

Oh, FKS!

Update: 2010-02-22 We had intended to leave the forum fully-funtioning for 30 days, but due to the inappropriate posts by some users and moderators, we have decided to leave the forum in a read-only state.

There's your 'something'.

EDIT: Note that it says POSTS, not PM's. These posts can be checked and judged if you follow the links provided by RDF members who managed to save the thread before it was deleted.

Oh for fuxache...if you're going to get into semantics..Josh's comment on the 22nd only explains why the forum went into a read-only state. It doesn't explain all the other allegations...e.g. was PM fuctionality disabled and why? was there a moderator massacre and why? did some moderators lose the plot and go off the rails? Was signatures functionality disabled and why?

[virphen]

Oh for fuxache...if you're going to get into semantics..Josh's comment on the 22nd only explains why the forum went into a read-only state. It doesn't explain all the other allegations...e.g. was PM fuctionality disabled and why? was there a moderator massacre and why? did some moderators lose the plot and go off the rails? Was signatures functionality disabled and why?

How many members does it take to tell you things before it sinks in.

Yes PM functionality was (practically) disabled. We could (and can) send maybe 2-3 a day. Dozens here will testify.

And all you have to do to confirm that signatures are disabled is go and browse around the fucking forum!