News coverage

[Made Of Stars]

Someone maybe could provide Chris with an example of the type of thing we are talking about: one of Cali's posts, or Hack, or Susu, etc, so he can see what we mean when we say scientific posts.

That would be fantastic.

@ Chris - the sort of writing that stands to be lost:

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 5#p2416335

PS. Who do you work for, and what's the message you're developing? (Forgive my curiosity - I work in corporate communications)

[Nora_Leonard]

Chris, I can't comment or provide links to appropriate science posts, but what I want to add is that the forum was incredibly well-rounded. There were threads where members could post their art-work and their poetry, discuss books, write haiku...and discuss religion and atheism and science and philosophy. What that proved to me was that atheists aren't just scientists and logicians, they are also poets and artists.

So when the very first announcement of the changes came out, the fact that they were going to cut the topics down to just science and 'reason' made me think the whole thing would become very lopsided.

This is also ignoring the aspect that fredbear's post highlighted so well. That the community could be incredibly supportive and encouraging, that it answered a real need, especially for atheists still in the closet.

That was the real slaughter, the total disregard for the community, the interaction of which was reduced in Dawkin's words to 'frivolous gossip'.

He also writes: "What is the underlying agenda of these people? How can anybody feel that strongly about something so small?"

Clearly in his eyes we were insignificant; I should imagine that the impassioned and sustained nature of our response is proof that in the communities' eyes we were anything but.

[RPizzle]

I like this one a lot. It deals with carbon dating. Though, Cali isn't the only prominent poster. There are many professional scientists who would go into minute details within their fields of study to get people to understand. Also, there were many non-scientists who were extremely well read and could discuss and teach people about a wide range of subjects.

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 2#p2111602

[kiki5711]

Chris, I can't comment or provide links to appropriate science posts, but what I want to add is that the forum was incredibly well-rounded. There were threads where members could post their art-work and their poetry, discuss books, write haiku...and discuss religion and atheism and science and philosophy. What that proved to me was that atheists aren't just scientists and logicians, they are also poets and artists.

So when the very first announcement of the changes came out, the fact that they were going to cut the topics down to just science and 'reason' made me think the whole thing would become very lopsided.

This is also ignoring the aspect that fredbear's post highlighted so well. That the community could be incredibly supportive and encouraging, that it answered a real need, especially for atheists still in the closet.

That was the real slaughter, the total disregard for the community, the interaction of which was reduced in Dawkin's words to 'frivolous gossip'.

He also writes: "What is the underlying agenda of these people? How can anybody feel that strongly about something so small?"

Clearly in his eyes we were insignificant; I should imagine that the impassioned and sustained nature of our response is proof that in the communities' eyes we were anything but.

I don't think Richard ever lived in the real world. He's grown up with a silver spoon and education very few of us could afford. I think he wants to keep the social status of those privileged ones. After all, who's going to buy his books if they can't afford to even feed their family?

[Spearthrower]

For my part; I was a member.... I live in Bangkok..... I went to bed with the forum working just fine..... woke up 6 hours later and it was already read-only. 'Knee-jerk reaction' doesn't even remotely cover such ridiculous behaviour from Josh Timonen. Had he not been so downright rude to the forum moderators, staff who gave their free-time willingly to the forums and foundation, they would not have felt obliged to make the regular members aware that they were not directly responsible. Josh was rude enough to delete the accounts, including 13,000 posts on scientific topics with responses from numerous other people, of moderators who had given their time for years to make that foundation operate.

I wasn't awake, so I can't comment on the language used; however, Josh et al would most certainly have expected the announcement of change in 30 days to cause some friction. They could simply have left it to the moderators to deal with - the people who had actually been running the site for the last few years. Instead, he went power mad, knocking down the tower of reason of which he was only a single brick.

Richard Dawkins, I am sorry to say, seems blithely unaware of much that occurred in his absence. His response makes that crystal clear. Unfortunately, it seems he places so much trust in Josh that he would actively alienate himself from hundreds of his foundation's most supportive members.

In my opinion, this has been a massive blow to the stated principles of the foundation. Zero transparency, irrational decision making, aggressive responses to criticism, actively stifling a secularist community that he has repeatedly stated is hard to come by, then nailing the coffin by burning all the records. By this, and we have evidence for this, that Josh or the IT guy has gone through the forum posts, deleted users and their entire posting records, deleted threads from much further back including Richard Dawkin's own posts, then actively deleted the admin records to cover his tracks. Something fishy is afoot there, without a doubt.

That's not all - burning all the records gets a little more literal than that when they pull the plug on millions of threads, a fair percentage of which present excellent explanations for scientific topics from diverse academic areas, political commentary on the last few years of current affairs (a historical record, Richard!), legendary posts known throughout the internet like Robert Byers' Why Polar Bears are White thread, or the monstrously comprehensive Great Flood Debunked thread..... I want to know which one of those gentlemen involved with this decision is prepared to make a public explanation of why they intend to delete it.

Quite simply, how can Richard permit this to occur and still stand and face an audience promoting rational thinking? It would be rank hypocrisy!

Is saying this is akin to "book burning" too strong? Obviously that conjurs up all sorts of nasty images.

I didn't say it was "akin to "book burning"" - I said they are "burning all the records" and then provided a litany of examples, both of the methods they have employed, and what stands to be lost.

Well, okay. They aren't actually burning dead trees. But they are erasing electronic information. Not a good thing if this body on information was more than a "forum" but a body of scientific papers, peer reviewed docs, reports, intellectual debates, etc. etc. If this is the case, for a scientist to be responsible for such an act, is truly amazing.

How would Richard feel if people started burning his books, text that he crafted into literary works? I daresay he would be apopleptic with rage.

I cannot see the difference. Perhaps the only difference is that his was an obvious textual work, sitting on a bookshelf, but with the forum's data it sat in a computer somewhere and, to the public's eye, was invisible.

You can say it... I was just making it clear that I didn't say it!

My hyperbole went further than that, I called it "Alexandria Library 2010"

[Peter Brown]

Not a good thing if this body on information was more than a "forum" but a body of scientific papers, peer reviewed docs, reports, intellectual debates, etc. etc. If this is the case, for a scientist to be responsible for such an act, is truly amazing.

The forum was only an electronic record of the wiliness of real scientists or knowledgeable amateurs to inform others. Removing the forum and the introduction of a censored and pre approved version was akin to placing a gag order on teachers having open questions classes on Darwinism, followed by a new regulation where only the authorised by committee version of Darwin's Theory could be taught.

Now how is that for a truly remarkable act by a scientist?

[Spearthrower]

Not a good thing if this body on information was more than a "forum" but a body of scientific papers, peer reviewed docs, reports, intellectual debates, etc. etc. If this is the case, for a scientist to be responsible for such an act, is truly amazing.

The forum was only an electronic record of the wiliness of real scientists or knowledgeable amateurs to inform others. Removing the forum and the introduction of a censored and pre approved version was akin to placing a gag order on teachers having open questions classes on Darwinism, followed by a new regulation where only the authorised by committee version of Darwin's Theory could be taught.

Now how is that for a truly remarkable act by a scientist?

I am actually slightly concerned that you may be closer to the truth than we realise.

Does anyone remember a discussion where Richard may have made a few off-the-cuff remarks to people who disputed his description of "random"?

If anyone does remember that thread, can they check that it still exists?

Just sayin....

[RPizzle]

Not a good thing if this body on information was more than a "forum" but a body of scientific papers, peer reviewed docs, reports, intellectual debates, etc. etc. If this is the case, for a scientist to be responsible for such an act, is truly amazing.

The forum was only an electronic record of the wiliness of real scientists or knowledgeable amateurs to inform others. Removing the forum and the introduction of a censored and pre approved version was akin to placing a gag order on teachers having open questions classes on Darwinism, followed by a new regulation where only the authorised by committee version of Darwin's Theory could be taught.

Now how is that for a truly remarkable act by a scientist?

I am actually slightly concerned that you may be closer to the truth than we realise.

Does anyone remember a discussion where Richard may have made a few off-the-cuff remarks to people who disputed his description of "random"?

If anyone does remember that thread, can they check that it still exists?

Just sayin....

I'd be interested to read this too.

[Chris Wilkins]

Not a good thing if this body on information was more than a "forum" but a body of scientific papers, peer reviewed docs, reports, intellectual debates, etc. etc. If this is the case, for a scientist to be responsible for such an act, is truly amazing.

The forum was only an electronic record of the wiliness of real scientists or knowledgeable amateurs to inform others. Removing the forum and the introduction of a censored and pre approved version was akin to placing a gag order on teachers having open questions classes on Darwinism, followed by a new regulation where only the authorised by committee version of Darwin's Theory could be taught.

Now how is that for a truly remarkable act by a scientist?

Er, surprising.

[Chris Wilkins]

Someone maybe could provide Chris with an example of the type of thing we are talking about: one of Cali's posts, or Hack, or Susu, etc, so he can see what we mean when we say scientific posts.

That would be fantastic.

@ Chris - the sort of writing that stands to be lost:

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 5#p2416335

PS. Who do you work for, and what's the message you're developing? (Forgive my curiosity - I work in corporate communications)

Wow. When I start checking out some of the information, it seems like a huge body of work. Of course it's value can be questioned and, I daresay, the RDF would question it.

Still doesn't justify junking it.

As for who I work for, I am a freelancer. My own blog is at www.casualravings.com. And the fact I am a freelancer means I can took at things like this. If I worked for a big newspaper perhaps I wouldn't have been given permission to check it out because there isn't enough naked skin involved.

[gilthanass]

I'm afraid I cannot answer some of your questions. Will this impact the RDF as a whole? I don't have enough relevant data to tell you. All I can say is that certainly the foundation drew some of its funding from the 10s of thousands of members of the forum, or from people those members interacted with in life. I can also tell you that I'm sure a sizable number of those members will no longer donate due to the treatment they feel like they've received. Will that make a noticeable impact on the foundations bottom line? Only time will tell.

I also won't go into too much detail about why we are angry. You can see from the many blog posts what our specific grievances are.

What I can speak to is the loss of the community itself. Richard obviously dismissed that community as trivial, but for some of us, it was anything but. I know, personally, I came to the forum after a disturbing self-conversion. Essentially, I starting thinking more and more about belief, and realizing more and more that I couldn't justify that belief to myself anymore. When that happened, when I realized I was an "atheist", I was, quite frankly, upset. I felt alone in life and felt like anyone I talked to about it would look down on me as some form of evil being. So, I decided to look on the internet for an atheist forum, see if there were others like me out there. What I found was the Richard Dawkins forum. What I found was a welcoming community that helped me get through the initial problems of coming to terms with your atheism, and helped me grow into a confident person, who isn't afraid to admit that un-belief to others I know, because I knew there was a community behind me. What I found was a group of people that I could turn to if I needed help approaching problems in like that are unique to atheists, or if I just needed to vent. What I found was what has long been thought impossible, a herd of cats.

And now, that's what I've lost. Remarkably, what I think Richard didn't realize was how successful his forum was at not only supporting science and debunking belief, but at promoting a campaign very near to his heart, the out campaign. The community there gave people the strength to stand up and be counted among the "amoral atheists", because they knew they were not alone.

That's also why you will see some people reacting with anger towards this. Think about being in a battered woman's group, meeting every week as your support network. Now imagine one week you show up, and the building is gone, and no one else is there. Those people you relied on as your community are gone, and you never even got their contact information. You'd be pissed, and you might react irrationally. You'd blame whoever shut the doors, and ask them to at least allow you to contact the other people in the group so you can find a new building, a new place to host it. That's what happened here, people who may have relied on this community for support had the rug suddenly pulled out from under them, and in the worst possible way.

[debunk]

They also are of the opinion (now don't get mad at me. I am only the messenger) that this is a small matter which will blow over, that you have overstated your importance to RDF, and that basically if you all leave RDF will not suffer one jot as in time others will replace you. Again, please don't get mad at me.

No need to get angry at you, Dawkins himself has made it perfectly clear that he suddenly doesn't consider us worthwhile. Simple as that, we're riff-raff to him.

So to get some concrete facts about this is from all of you; how many of there are you that feel this strongly about what has happened? Does anyone have any numbers? And, this is a difficult one to measure, how will the RDF be affected by your departure? Will it continue on its merry way without you, or will it indeed be greatly diminished?

The only thing that'll happen is that christians (like, say, Ken Ham or Ray Comfort) will gleefully mention this whole sorry affair and say things like "see, even Dawkins doesn't like atheists". This time around there won't be many people left who'll want to defend him against such allegations. I for one won't, and I've defended Dawkins against many claims that he's arrogant, militant, strident, etc. I wouldn't describe him as such myself, the term elitist suits him better.

[edit] What I'm trying to say is that his actions probably won't have an averse effect on his foundation or the reception of his ideas regarding biology, but it is a loss of face for "the atheist cause".

[Mysturji]

That is, if this dimishes his reputation and his support base, surely it has to impact the message that "evolution is real", that the flintstones is not a documentary?

Er, no. Richard Dawkins and his staff behaving badly on the internet is briefly thrilling, but it isn't actually powerful enough to stop evolution. I hope that isn't your angle on this story? Some people will go back to the old forum, some will find new ones, some will get over their anger, some will never buy a Dawkins book again... but I don't think anyone is going to say, "That's it, I'm going to stop thinking evolution happens! That'll show him!" That would just be stupid. Like ceasing to believe in gravity because I'm pissed off that I dropped my sandwich.

Er, that's not quite what I meant. I mean will it lesson the strength of his arguments to the general public.

Put it this way. You grew up in backwoods Alabama. You really don't know what to believe. All those around you say creationism is the bee knees, and the right thing to believe in. But then you here about a book called, "The God Delusion" and this travelling English professor who has a different view. And you begin to wonder.

Then you hear about how this same man, or his organisation, treated their supporters badly.

This is going to sow a seed of doubt in such a person's head. And it this I was referring to.

Good point.

[TheOneTrueZeke]

I just thought this should be mentioned here:


http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 26#p356026

I do talk with Richard now and then, but they are brief missives by email. We have never discussed this new forum in any way. I doubt that he's concerned at all about it -- he is not the internet monitor.

I have mentioned to him that the forum archives should be preserved. It's his understanding that they will be -- barring any technical issues. We're talking about it, anyway, and I'm sure that if there is no problem, there will be a clarification made.

So we shouldn't really be jumping to any conclusions about books of any sort being "burned" metaphorically or otherwise.

[Chris Wilkins]

I just thought this should be mentioned here:


http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 26#p356026

I do talk with Richard now and then, but they are brief missives by email. We have never discussed this new forum in any way. I doubt that he's concerned at all about it -- he is not the internet monitor.

I have mentioned to him that the forum archives should be preserved. It's his understanding that they will be -- barring any technical issues. We're talking about it, anyway, and I'm sure that if there is no problem, there will be a clarification made.

So we shouldn't really be jumping to any conclusions about books of any sort being "burned" metaphorically or otherwise.

The more I delve into this thing, the more I am convinced the crux of the issue is; what exactly was deleted?

When it is reported, "a forum was deleted" most people think, "whoopie do. So what?" because they assume, I suspect, that it is a bunch of inane comments about weather, football, what they did the on weekend, etc.

But if it can be clearly shown that the forum was in fact a body of information that was of worth, that in fact it contained scientific and intellectual discourse and investigation, then that changes everything.

To date I have not heard a concise detailed list of what was in there. Of course, this is why I am looking into this. And I know the Times would be far more interested in this whole thing if it can be shown that such a body of material was scrubbed clean.

Which comes back to evidence and examples of stuff that went the way of the dodo.