First reaction by Richard Dawkins.

[95Theses]

What exactly is it about me that you wouldn't want as part of your community? You mention it's something about the blog. Was it that I didn't like having lies told about me? Or that I refused to blame Dawkins due to the lack of evidence, and only placed blame when there was evidence to do so? Or was it that I tried to find ex-members and give them info on where others can be found? I'm just curious what it is about my blog entry that makes me unwelcome in a community.

Just don't feed the troll, Peter. He's going "LA-LA-LA CANTHEARYOUUUUUU LA-LA-LA!" and happy with it. Leave him be and safe your time, mate.

He has no point to make, he's just sitting at his keyboard with his grubby little cock in his paw wanking over winding people up on the internet.

Beneath you, mate. Cool down.

Yeah but he's flooding the place with so much shit it's getting tedious to scroll past it, even if I'm not bothering to read it.

[Matt H]

Ruth Gledhill gets involved - I commented as one might expect -- http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhil ... eists.html

Thank you Jerome. One thing I've learned from this whole mess is that atheists can be terrible people too. I still think religion is wrong, but from now on I'll see religious people in a much different way.

[Chauncey Gardner]

What exactly is it about me that you wouldn't want as part of your community?

The sort of person that would stab you in the back based on speculation. Allow me to explain: you DON'T KNOW the full story Peter. You are piecing together various events and speculation and I would argue that you're deliberately fuelling an angry mob, exploiting the obvious anger and upset that's out there over what's happened.

Again, you maybe completely right about everything...I don't know. What I do know, however, is that YOU DON'T KNOW. You think you know, you clearly want to believe you know and you're scrapping together as much hearsay and so-called "evidence" to satisfy your anger.

take a break at the weekend and go for a long walk... and check out this site: http://www.rationalskepticism.org it looks great.

[Simon_Gardner]

Andrew Brown’s Blog: The mutiny at RichardDawkins.Net

You need a rhino’s hide to deal with with the angry atheists on Richard Dawkins’ site

Oh dear: prayers are asked for the Richard Dawkins web site, which has become the focus of an extraordinary outpouring of bile, not from Christians, but from disaffected atheists. An adjustment to the software that runs the discussion site provoked such frenzied hostility among some users that all new comments have now been stopped until the new system is in place and some of the most hostile have had their accounts removed.

Dawkins himself posted on the front page of his site a defence of the site manager responsible:

“Imagine that you, as a greatly liked and respected person, found yourself overnight subjected to personal vilification on an unprecedented scale, from anonymous commenters on a website. Suppose you found yourself described as an “utter twat” a “suppurating rectum. A suppurating rat’s rectum. A suppurating rat’s rectum inside a dead skunk that’s been shoved up a week-old dead rhino’s twat.

Surely there has to be something wrong with people who can resort to such over-the-top language, over-reacting so spectacularly to something so trivial. Even some of those with more temperate language are responding to the proposed changes in a way that is little short of hysterical. Was there ever such conservatism, such reactionary aversion to change, such vicious language in defence of a comfortable status quo? What is the underlying agenda of these people? How can anybody feel that strongly about something so small? Have we stumbled on some dark, territorial atavism? Have private fiefdoms been unwittingly trampled?

Be that as it may, what this remarkable bile suggests to me is that there is something rotten in the Internet culture that can vent it.”

The most hysterical stuff has been removed from the Dawkins site, along with all the postings of the most serious offenders, but there is a flavour of it can be found in the long despairing ululations here: although almost all the posters find it impossible to believe that Dawkins himself would approve of a measure that they find distasteful. They blame his underlings for the decision to downgrade the discussion forums and channel all discussion through the front page.

To anyone who has been on the receiving end of this kind of abuse, which is sometimes directed at people who do not work for Richard Dawkins, this conversion of the professor’s comes as wonderful news. Hallelujah, brother. You have seen the light!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... n-comments

[Luis Dias]

Well, I kinda think that PZ is somewhat right.

What if Josh is an asshole that doesn't care about the community they created without actually wanting to?

Don't care about Josh. Dump the guy, forget him. He may well be a "nice" guy, for all I know, and be somewhat of an ass towards those whom he wants to "fire". I think we should not discuss the persona of people we don't actually know anyway.

So let's worry more about rearranging the whole community, and forget Dawkins and his behavior. He's merely human anyway. My respect for those two descended way way down, but so what? What are we to gain here?

Let's move on, give the finger at those people and perhaps in time they will understand the big mistake they made. If they don't, well, that's life, and in that time we couldn't care anyway.

Still:

Allow me to explain: you DON'T KNOW the full story Peter.

He DOESN'T have to know "everything" to know that Dawkins and Josh treated everyone as imbeciles. That's a fucking ridiculous demand of yours. He just has to read what was put forth to him. Like I have. I felt insulted by both condescending "messages" from the high ground.

[Surendra Darathy]

Ruth Gledhill gets involved - I commented as one might expect -- http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhil ... eists.html

Thank you Jerome. One thing I've learned from this whole mess is that atheists can be terrible people too. I still think religion is wrong, but from now on I'll see religious people in a much different way.

Well, that's the whole enchilada. Having a "self" makes people "selfish". Being "shellfish" would be better, on balance. Keep clam, I always say.

It doesn't change the fact that religion is silly, or that bad arguments are bad.

I thought Jerome's comments were spot on, i.e., not "bad arguments".

you maybe completely right about everything...I don't know. What I do know, however, is that YOU DON'T KNOW.

What CG doesn't know is that he doesn't know that he doesn't know. I've seen his brand of sophistry countless times, now.

[Surendra Darathy]

He DOESN'T have to know "everything" to know that Dawkins and Josh treated everyone as imbeciles. That's a fucking ridiculous demand of yours. He just has to read what was put forth to him. Like I have. I felt insulted by both condescending "messages" from the high ground.

What LD said.

I know when I'm being treated as an imbecile, and I know that it's frequently a miscalculation to do so.

[Pensioner]

Ruth Gledhill gets involved - I commented as one might expect -- http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhil ... eists.html

Thank you Jerome. One thing I've learned from this whole mess is that atheists can be terrible people too. I still think religion is wrong, but from now on I'll see religious people in a much different way.

I remember when I first joined the other place and I joined in a political topic. I forget what the subject was but I think it was, something like, “us atheists should start a political Party”. I said something like. I would rather stand shoulder to shoulder with a left wing Christian than a right wing atheist shit. The first guy to come to my defense was Jerome. Never forgot that.

[Matt H]

Ruth Gledhill gets involved - I commented as one might expect -- http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhil ... eists.html

Thank you Jerome. One thing I've learned from this whole mess is that atheists can be terrible people too. I still think religion is wrong, but from now on I'll see religious people in a much different way.

I remember when I first joined the other place and I joined in a political topic. I forget what the subject was but I think it was, something like, “us atheists should start a political Party”. I said something like. I would rather stand shoulder to shoulder with a left wing Christian than a right wing atheist shit. The first guy to come to my defense was Jerome. Never forgot that.

Indeed.

Another thing I'll know not to do in future is stick up for Richard Dawkins when I'm down the pub. I know he's an elitist snob. Funny thing is, people have always tried to tell me that and I've told them he's just misunderstood.

[Chauncey Gardner]

Allow me to explain: you DON'T KNOW the full story Peter.

He DOESN'T have to know "everything" to know that Dawkins and Josh treated everyone as imbeciles. That's a fucking ridiculous demand of yours. He just has to read what was put forth to him. Like I have. I felt insulted by both condescending "messages" from the high ground.

you're quote mining luis dias That's not only insulting but extremely irritating.

I said to peter that he may well be right about everything, but, he doesn't know the full story. There's nothing wrong with speculating but making the leap from speculation to the sort of stuff on peter harrisons blog (comments included) is so far beyond the pale it defies belief.

it's kangaroo court stuff.

I also said that people need to calm down.....wait unil the dust settles and the red mist clears before sticking more pins in joshs eyes and more knives in richards back.

I don't subscribe to mob rule, luis, I would prefer to wait until the full facts are known. at the moment they aren't.

[Spearthrower]

Ruth Gledhill gets involved - I commented as one might expect -- http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhil ... eists.html

Thank you Jerome. One thing I've learned from this whole mess is that atheists can be terrible people too. I still think religion is wrong, but from now on I'll see religious people in a much different way.

I never saw atheists or religious people as anything more than people. We're a diverse bunch superficially, but we all shit and make silly faces when we orgasm... or play air guitar.... or.

If you read it as people can be terrible, then it is much clearer. Generally, people also have a capacity for kindness and all the goody stuff too!

[Surendra Darathy]

That's not only insulting but extremely irritating.

Know what, CG? Some people want their hangnails declared as fucking "Federal Disaster Areas". So, irritation, then.

I don't subscribe to mob rule, luis

So fucking civilised. You subscribe to wibbling instead. The hallmark of fucking "civilisation".

[Chauncey Gardner]

you maybe completely right about everything...I don't know. What I do know, however, is that YOU DON'T KNOW.

What CG doesn't know is that he doesn't know that he doesn't know. I've seen his brand of sophistry countless times, now.

wow...

you know...I didn't like the wording richard used in his 'outrage' letter, but, the more I read from people like you the more I understand what he means when he talked about routing out some people.

[Chauncey Gardner]

That's not only insulting but extremely irritating.

Know what, CG? Some people want their hangnails declared as fucking "Federal Disaster Areas". So, irritation, then.

you're mine quoting surendra. why don't you go here to win more friends and influence people? http://www.rationalskepticism.org/

[Surendra Darathy]

you know...I didn't like the wording richard used in his 'outrage' letter, but, the more I read from people like you the more I understand what he means when he talked about routing out some people.

Yes, indeed. I'm quite the sort who needs "routing out". You can count on that. This is because irreverence is more general than "atheism" or "Corporate Atheism". No, Chaunce, I am no respecter of persons. Bon chance, Chaunce.