Times Online- Richard Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans

[I'm With Stupid]

It's too much to hope for that any news piece these days would be long enough and would go into sufficient detail to lay out all the genuine and legitimate grievances that so very many people have. Peter Harrison's post on his own blog took nearly 5000 words to do that. I'm not even remotely hopeful that anybody coming to this story cold is going to get any rounded picture from news sources. So it goes.

Meh, people will believe what they want to. But we're not the ones with anything to lose here. The atheist community as a whole aren't the ones with anything to lose (if anything, it makes the claims that Dawkins is some sort of worship figure seem more ridiculous than ever). The only person to lose anything by this going national is Dawkins. It might raise his profile as a figure of controversy, but I don't think it will help his cause any in terms of being taken seriously as a commentator on social issues.

[klr]

I see NMcC (Nigel McCullough) has alighted on the article.


You would need to know your RD.net history going back a very long way - especially front page history - to understand my reaction.

[Millefleur]

Although the article is pretty neutral (not like the author would take sides if they knew all the facts?) I wonder why they choose such an unattractive image of Richard, looking like such a pinched mean old man, its not like there aren't more flattering pics to choose from

[Flora]

I've posted this on PZ's blog

Re: The Times article

I was feeling pretty sick when I read Richard's "Outrage" announcement because those insults he quoted were not at all representative of the vast majority of forum members, they were made AFTER the forum was locked and they were NOT sent to Josh or even posted on RD.net forum. They were harvested quotes from a very small minority of people posting elsewhere.

Richard has been informed of this and I was desperately hoping that he'd edit his announcement accordingly.

It's too late now because it's on the Times website and the thousands of loyal, intelligent, rational forum members have been misrepresented as a bunch of foul-mouthed, vitriolic thugs by the man who so inspired them.

To any moderate Christians reading this who have been labelled as disgusting due to the evil, homophobic rantings of the Westborough Baptist Church, I know how you feel.

[kiki5711]

I've posted this on PZ's blog

Re: The Times article

I was feeling pretty sick when I read Richard's "Outrage" announcement because those insults he quoted were not at all representative of the vast majority of forum members, they were made AFTER the forum was locked and they were NOT sent to Josh or even posted on RD.net forum. They were harvested quotes from a very small minority of people posting elsewhere.

Richard has been informed of this and I was desperately hoping that he'd edit his announcement accordingly.

It's too late now because it's on the Times website and the thousands of loyal, intelligent, rational forum members have been misrepresented as a bunch of foul-mouthed, vitriolic thugs by the man who so inspired them.

To any moderate Christians reading this who have been labelled as disgusting due to the evil, homophobic rantings of the Westborough Baptist Church, I know how you feel.

[DoctorE]

Although the article is pretty neutral (not like the author would take sides if they knew all the facts?) I wonder why they choose such an unattractive image of Richard, looking like such a pinched mean old man, its not like there aren't more flattering pics to choose from

Yea worst pic I have seen of him evar

[Bella Fortuna]

Although the article is pretty neutral (not like the author would take sides if they knew all the facts?) I wonder why they choose such an unattractive image of Richard, looking like such a pinched mean old man, its not like there aren't more flattering pics to choose from

Yea worst pic I have seen of him evar

Perhaps not accidental...

[Svartalf]

Oh go suck your thumb Dawkins, you cunt.

Something like that... I wonder how my friend Randy Ping, who had made dawk all but his personal god is taking all that...

[Svartalf]

It seems we are all seeing first hand how the lies of one (maybe two) small-minded git covering his own arse become history.

can you remind this poor sod who missed all the action who the git is? Dawk hisself? I've seen the name of a josh timonen bandied about, but I never even heard of him before arriving here, and the story is foggier than vague from my ill informed view.
(or direct me to someplace with a good explanation of the whole shebang, of course)

[Ilovelucy]

Here's another by the Times Religion Correspondent. Same story really. You guys know the drill.

http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhil ... eists.html

[Matt H]

At the end of the day, a newspaper will always prefer the word of the most famous atheist in the world over a bunch of internet nobodies. Sorry, but that is how it goes; just how Dawkins will prefer the word of his own personal friend above a group of people he sees as little more than spoilt brats.

[maiforpeace]

Although the article is pretty neutral (not like the author would take sides if they knew all the facts?) I wonder why they choose such an unattractive image of Richard, looking like such a pinched mean old man, its not like there aren't more flattering pics to choose from

They had to pick something that would match the title of the article.

[Millefleur]

Although the article is pretty neutral (not like the author would take sides if they knew all the facts?) I wonder why they choose such an unattractive image of Richard, looking like such a pinched mean old man, its not like there aren't more flattering pics to choose from

Yea worst pic I have seen of him evar

Perhaps not accidental...

I sincerely hope not :twisted:

I've posted a comment too, not that i feel it contains so much detail or is written so articulately (is that even a bloody word?) but maybe if everybody posts a short message they'll realise its not just a handful of people, they need to see numbers.

[Chauncey Gardner]

Having just read the article and the comments I think it is quite telling that all the comments are saying the same thing, i.e. "No, Richard has got it wrong!" And then the links to the blogs.

So far no-one is actually posting 'evidence' that Richard has got it right. Which of course would be hard to do as there is no evidence for that.

I know that many members of RD.net were reluctant for this to hit the news, but I'm quietly (or I guess not so quietly, as I'm writing about it here ) feeling that justice is being served.

they're not posting to 'evidence' Nora. They're pointing to hearsay from people who don't know the full facts. They're just stringing together various speculations to draw a conclusion that satisfies their anger.

It's called MOB RULE.

[DoctorE]

Here's another by the Times Religion Correspondent. Same story really. You guys know the drill.

http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhil ... eists.html

WTF... spooky

He added: 'The positive thing is that we are going to try and improve the quality of the articles and comments. Josh Timonen is brilliant and is a real star and it is extremely unfortunate that he should have been vilified.'