First reaction by Richard Dawkins.

[Simon_Gardner]

RDF members who managed to save some of the thread before it was deleted.

Edited.

[Chauncey Gardner]

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.

Hold on a second...you're now speculating that this was a conspiracy that was planned weeks ago? i.e. Josh came up with this cunning plan and then laughed manically while petting a white cat...

you know what? I didn't like the wording of Richard Dawkins recent letter he posted on the site, but, the more I listen to you guys, the more I'm beginning to understand what he means....who in their right mind would want a community involving people like that?

[gilthanass]

Seeing that RD is online now, I sent this.

i don't know if you are proud of yourself, but that is about as unhelpful as you could possibly be. This kind of childish PM to Richard is helping no one and simply reinforcing the line that was presented to him by Josh that what was done on the forums was the right thing to do.

I can only hope that your message is drowned out by more reasonable rational ones. You don't speak for me, and you've made yourself look a fool for sending this.

if you had a point to make to him you should have made rational evidence supported ones, not bare ad-homs that will be simply disregarded as yet more evidence of the looney rants that caused the site to be shut down.

You've done our cause harm, were it in my power I'd award you a bloody dunaspy.

Agreed. People have to understand this, Richard is friends with Josh, he knows him in real life, no one will make him doubt Josh by calling Josh names (even if they may be justified).

Think about this, you have a good friend, who you've known for years and work with. Now, you start getting emails from people you don't know calling your friend a douche-bag, a traitor, Hitler incarnate, Judas, etc. What is your first reaction? Well, naturally, it's to get your back up, defend your friend as a matter of course, and essentially go to bat for him/her.

Alternatively, if you got some emails (even from people you didn't know) that didn't attack your friend, merely provided a well reasoned, and supported, viewpoint that your friend may have made some mistakes (that directly impacted your business), providing proof, you may look into it further. Sure, you will still give your friend the benefit of the doubt, and it will take a lot of evidence to convince you s/he's been guilty of wrongdoing, but you will probably at least consider it more than if people just attacked him/her.

So, I'd caution people to try to be calm and rational about this. We have the facts on our side.

As a side note, I took the "bitching about Josh" thread as half levity. On the internet, going way overboard on things is just what happens, and may or may not represent reality in any way. It's like when you bitch to your best friend about things, it doesn't mean you actually want to stick a pen in your eye when you hear bill talk, it's just a good way to relieve frustration.

[Ilovelucy]

Pleas guys, don't feed RDF's most distinguished sock puppeteer. Well, after atheistoclast.

[Babel]

Hold on a second...you're now speculating that this was a conspiracy that was planned weeks ago? i.e. Josh came up with this cunning plan and then laughed manically while petting a white cat...

you know what? I didn't like the wording of Richard Dawkins recent letter he posted on the site, but, the more I listen to you guys, the more I'm beginning to understand what he means....who in their right mind would want a community involving people like that?

What I wanted to show to you, was that your interpretation of the things that unfolded was by no means the only plausible explanation, but still you're presenting them as facts. This troubles me, since you keep refuting the examples brought up by different posters, because they, according to you, have no solid proof.

edit: i thought I smelled a rat, but i thought it was the other users.

[kiki5711]

Well, how much does Josh get paid for his friendship with Dawkins??? Foundations of all kinds misuse the money they get from their followers.

[Chauncey Gardner]

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!

and that proves what exactly?

Seriously? WTF does that prove?

Most forums disable signatures because of bandwidth....particularly when mothballing a site/forum. Ditto for PMs. I'm not saying that's what happened, but, I'm suggesting you need to keep an open mind and not accepting speculations as fact just because loads of people (who aren't privvy to the full details) are repeating them.

Furthermore, can you tell by looking at those archived threads WHY EXACTLY some moderators had their privileges removed? and some profiles were removed?

did some moderators lose the plot completely? or was Josh laughing manically and a white cat he was petting walked over his keyboard and got it's paw stuck in the delete key?

LOL

[Chauncey Gardner]

Hold on a second...you're now speculating that this was a conspiracy that was planned weeks ago? i.e. Josh came up with this cunning plan and then laughed manically while petting a white cat...

you know what? I didn't like the wording of Richard Dawkins recent letter he posted on the site, but, the more I listen to you guys, the more I'm beginning to understand what he means....who in their right mind would want a community involving people like that?

What I wanted to show to you, was that your interpretation of the things that unfolded was by no means the only plausible explanation, but still you're presenting them as facts. This troubles me, since you keep refuting the examples brought up by different posters, because they, according to you, have no solid proof.

allow me to try again...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?

[Shaker]

was Josh laughing manically and a white cat he was petting walked over his keyboard and got it's paw stuck in the delete key?

More likely to have been a ginger cat, AFAIC.

[Fallible]

'LOL' indeed.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

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!

and that proves what exactly?

Seriously? WTF does that prove?

Most forums disable signatures because of bandwidth....particularly when mothballing a site/forum. Ditto for PMs. I'm not saying that's what happened, but, I'm suggesting you need to keep an open mind and not accepting speculations as fact just because loads of people (who aren't privvy to the full details) are repeating them.

Furthermore, can you tell by looking at those archived threads WHY EXACTLY some moderators had their privileges removed? and some profiles were removed?

did some moderators lose the plot completely? or was Josh laughing manically and a white cat he was petting walked over his keyboard and got it's paw stuck in the delete key?

LOL

Does the phrase "so open your brains fall out" ring any bells.

[ozewiezeloose]

allow me to try again...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?

The one in bold italics. [3] also omits the disappearance of signatures, the virtual disappearance of the PM function, and the deactivation of the search function. [1] ignores Josh's unkept promises to both mods and members.

[Chauncey Gardner]

allow me to try again...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?

The one in bold italics. [3] also omits the disappearance of signatures, the virtual disappearance of the PM function, and the deactivation of the search function. [1] ignores Josh's unkept promises to both mods and members.

LOL you're funny.

the search function was causing massive problems with the server...including the front page/shop and other areas of the site according to josh. hence the reason they wanted to re-jig the forum.

you don't know why the PM function and signatures were disabled.

you don't know why certain moderators privileges were revoked

but that doesn't stop you stringing together a bunch of speculative comments made on blogs and message boards to draw a conclusion that fits with your anger.

brilliant. you. couldn't. make. it. up.

[ozewiezeloose]

I'm thinking troll.

[Fallible]

It's funny. He says 'you couldn't make it up', but he did precisely that.