First reaction by Richard Dawkins.

[Chauncey Gardner]

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

lol. attacking me doesn't make your speculations any more true, Fallible. In the same breath, I'm not saying your speculations aren't true....all I'm saying is that you're all lost in a red mist and coming across as, in my opinion, very irrational people.

Incidentally, Fallible, I do think it's very funny that you (and others on here) are trying to ridicule me because I refuse to become a cheerleader for the judgementalists.


here's a comment that's worth reading....

hackenslash:

You sound like the liberal idiots that have invaded most college campuses. You know, the ones that decide for the rest of us who can be heard and who can’t. They shout down those with a different point of view, they throw pies, etc. They justify these acts of aggression and censorship by likening the views of their targets to those that “cry fire in a crowded theatre.” That they feel qualified to decide for the rest of us what is and is not “fire” (in regards to free speech) is a clear case of hubris and arrogance. These people probably think they are champions of free speech when, in fact, they are only champions of *their* speech.

You probably think of yourself as objective, clear-headed, and rational. Based on your ridiculous defense of copious swearing, I merely consider you incapable of exercising the self-control necessary to express disagreement in a civil, respectful manner. I can hear what you’re thinking now: those that dare to disagree with any of *your* passionately held positions don’t *deserve* civility or respect — but that only proves my point regarding the hubris and arrogance of those on the net like you. It’s your ilk that make sites such as RD.NET, Panda’s Thumb, etc. the ridiculous pits of vitriol they have become. Anyone with an open mind about issues will think twice before throwing their lot in with the likes of you.

[Feck]

We have seen the attitude OK BYE (rapid unexplained banning /deleting) before. It has been done on Dawkins forum and on others .Everybody knows that particular style of 'management' brings about a massive shit storm . They did it, they knew what they were doing, they thought that the shit storm could be contained and were more than happy to reverse cause and effect, try to cover their tracks and stir up more vitriol . To some how try and say everyone should stay calm and polite and wait for the evidence when the evidence was clearly being destroyed is cowardly .

[Mr.Samsa]

here's a comment that's worth reading....

hackenslash:

You sound like the liberal idiots that have invaded most college campuses. You know, the ones that decide for the rest of us who can be heard and who can’t. They shout down those with a different point of view, they throw pies, etc. They justify these acts of aggression and censorship by likening the views of their targets to those that “cry fire in a crowded theatre.” That they feel qualified to decide for the rest of us what is and is not “fire” (in regards to free speech) is a clear case of hubris and arrogance. These people probably think they are champions of free speech when, in fact, they are only champions of *their* speech.

You probably think of yourself as objective, clear-headed, and rational. Based on your ridiculous defense of copious swearing, I merely consider you incapable of exercising the self-control necessary to express disagreement in a civil, respectful manner. I can hear what you’re thinking now: those that dare to disagree with any of *your* passionately held positions don’t *deserve* civility or respect — but that only proves my point regarding the hubris and arrogance of those on the net like you. It’s your ilk that make sites such as RD.NET, Panda’s Thumb, etc. the ridiculous pits of vitriol they have become. Anyone with an open mind about issues will think twice before throwing their lot in with the likes of you.

Why? The guy who made that post was a complete idiot and his logic was so painfully flawed, I would actually support Josh deleting that from the internet and existence forever.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...Incidentally, Fallible, I do think it's very funny that you (and others on here) are trying to ridicule me because I refuse to become a cheerleader for the judgementalists...

No, what you're a cheerleader for, is the viewpoint "OK, so it may look like a duck, walk like a duck, swim like a duck and quack like a duck, but all you people saying it is a duck before we have the DNA results back, are just jumping to unsupported conclusions".

[Fallible]

lol. attacking me doesn't make your speculations any more true, Fallible.

Oh dear. No - you are not paying attention at all, as I suspected. I'm sure that's quite deliberate at this point.

In the same breath, I'm not saying your speculations aren't true....all I'm saying is that you're all lost in a red mist and coming across as, in my opinion, very irrational people.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. It's pure piffle. Again, I ask you to try to remain calm. You're not coming across very well.

Incidentally, Fallible, I do think it's very funny that you (and others on here) are trying to ridicule me because I refuse to become a cheerleader for the judgementalists.

No one else here needs to expend any energy on a task which is being carried out perfectly adequately without their help.

here's a comment that's worth reading....

hackenslash:<snip>

[/quote]

I've read it before. It wasn't worth it.

[Surendra Darathy]

You're right that I don't know what they are thinking. That's how I don't know whether Richard is aware of the lies etc. But we don't need to be supernatural to know that we are being accused of things that didn't happen. I can't say what Richard thinks as a fact. But it is a fact that they have lied about reason for closing the forum, they have lied for months to the mods and they have even lied to Richard himself.

has it occurred to you that there might have been a very valid reason that josh and the RDF team had to suddenly back-track on the promise to keep the forum alive for 30 days and pull the plug?

Or are you so entrenched in your opinion that the RDF site administrator who has run and helped build one of the biggest atheist sites on the planet, suddenly went postal for petulant reasons and told Richard a few porky pies to cover his tracks?

When the dust settles and the red mist clears...I'm guessing you might be just a teeny weeny bit embarrassed by your recent blog posts about the RDF closure. I've read lot of message board comments and blog posts...even twitter posts...the majority of which refer back to your blog as "proof" everyone has been royally shafted. There's even people posting bullet point summaries of your points on this forum as if it is FACT.

If I was a betting man, my money would be on a rational and valid reason for Josh's actions this week (suddenly pulling the plug).

Well, your point seems to be that, on the grand scale of things, this is essentially a non-event, since it happened in cyber-space. To some extent that is true, and I recognize the contrarian in you, especially since I am one myself.

All I can suggest is that you try a different context. I would suggest focusing instead on analyzing what might have led the forum administration at RDF to change the format of the site vis-a-vis the forum.

I am neither a fanboy nor a detractor of Dawkins and I don't think a lot of vitriol should be directed his way following on the posted comments defending Timonen (and or Chalkley). What hurts most, from my perspective, is not the damage to the forum or its community, but what looms as an attempt to cover-up the damage to good will that was created by the manner in which the transition was handled, particularly in the last days as the situation snowballed.

Going back a few weeks or months, we see decisions were made to modify the forum format. The potential reasons for those range from technical incapacity to support a fully functional forum given the volume of membership and text to suspicions that the tone of some discussions in the forum was damaging the interests of the Foundation as it pursued whichever goals it chooses.

What appears to be a fact, however, at this point is that admin logs were wiped after the situation spun out of control. If Dawkins or any other representative of the RDF ever addresses this, it will only be a distraction from inquiring into the real reasons the decision was made to overhaul the content of the website in a big way.

If minimising damage to the reputation and mission of the Foundation figure into it at all, even going back weeks or months, I'd say a certain measure of the blame also must be placed upon the website administration. Scolding former forum members for reacting badly to something they may only be dimly aware of is what I like to call a "straw herring".

[Chauncey Gardner]

...Incidentally, Fallible, I do think it's very funny that you (and others on here) are trying to ridicule me because I refuse to become a cheerleader for the judgementalists...

No, what you're a cheerleader for, is the viewpoint "OK, so it may look like a duck, walk like a duck, swim like a duck and quack like a duck, but all you people saying it is a duck before we have the DNA results back, are just jumping to unsupported conclusions".

LOL

I beg to differ Horwood. It's more like "peter harrison said it's like a duck, someone else said it sounds like a duck, someone else said peter harrison said it swims like a duck...so it must be a duck".

I can explain that for you Horwood. But I can't understand it for you.

[I'm With Stupid]

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

Bloody hell, he's turning into Richard Littlejohn.

[klr]

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

Bloody hell, he's turning into Richard Littlejohn.

[Flora]

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

+ 1

[ozewiezeloose]

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

+ 1

+2

[Mr.Samsa]

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

+ 1

Does Mr Gardner here have some sockpuppetry gripe with RDF?

[drl2]

Yeeeeeah, as a graphic designer, I have to say, I've never like RD.net's front page. Good grief, it's so CLUTTERED! What for degree did Josh freaking GO for? Not one in design, I hope. The only thing I like about it is the top banner.

that's true but also very unfair. i've project managed a few large websites and the most difficult thing to do is change the design, particularly of a site front page, because of familiarity. A site like rd.net that grew very quickly probably started out as a quick-n-cheerful html website where things just got added over time and there wasn't time (or maybe budget) for someone to stand back, take a long hard look at it and come up with a different user interface.

It looked to me like the site was built on one of the open-source content management packages like Drupal or Joomla, using a freely available template or one purchased from one of the many template builders who sell templates commercially from their web sites for relatively low prices. Other than the logo across the top of the page, I suspect that the RDF put very little design effort into that site themselves (and no coding whatsoever, most likely, relying instead on the myriad of plug-ins available to handle the functionality they needed).

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...Incidentally, Fallible, I do think it's very funny that you (and others on here) are trying to ridicule me because I refuse to become a cheerleader for the judgementalists...

No, what you're a cheerleader for, is the viewpoint "OK, so it may look like a duck, walk like a duck, swim like a duck and quack like a duck, but all you people saying it is a duck before we have the DNA results back, are just jumping to unsupported conclusions".

LOL

I beg to differ Horwood. It's more like "peter harrison said it's like a duck, someone else said it sounds like a duck, someone else said peter harrison said it swims like a duck...so it must be a duck".

I can explain that for you Horwood. But I can't understand it for you.

Except people aren't just taking Peter Harrison's word for it, all of the ex-RDF staff who were online at the time confirm the same story.

Peter Harrison was merely the first to get a detailed account of events up on his blog, that's the only reason everyone is linking to him.

[laklak]

No, what you're a cheerleader for, is the viewpoint "OK, so it may look like a duck, walk like a duck, swim like a duck and quack like a duck, but all you people saying it is a duck before we have the DNA results back, are just jumping to unsupported conclusions".

Our preliminary analysis yields inconclusive results. Approximately 50% of the DNA is clearly of family Anatidae, while the remainder appears to be of family Crocodylidae .