Times Online- Richard Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans

[Arse]

I really can't believe that the closing of an internet forum is hitting the news. Times are changing. I'm also unable to believe the horrific abuse that is being directed to Richard Dawkins here. This is the ''dark side'' of Internet fan bases: sure, they can shower praise on you, but they can turn in an instant, with the least provocation. I'm really saddened that apparent fans of Dawkins have directed so many insults towards him.

And I'm shocked that someone whose books I have bought and whose television programmes I have enjoyed has turned out to be such a liar. Its the falsification of what actually happened that is responsible for the reaction, (or most of it anyway), that you see here. If telling blatant lies and slandering people seems like "the least provocation" to you, then I would wonder how badly you have to be treated before your self-respect kicks in and you tell someone where to go.

[Mysturji]

[Calilasseia]

Old timers/mods vs noobs bullshit, perhaps? Eh, maybe I'm just imagining things then.

Anyway, http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=9181

Oh you want perspective, do you?

Then allow me to provide some appropriate "perspective", since you are in need of the requisite education.

I spent two and a half years posting and moderating over at RDF, and during that time, I posted close on 13,000 posts, posted something like two million words, cited around 400 scientific papers, and presented around 50 of those in detail, taking care to ensure that the valid science contained in those papers was expounded in such a manner that it was accessible to those without specialist knowledge. I also exercised the effort to take on numerous professional liars for doctrine, such as Rich Deem and the hacks who write for AiG, comprehensively dismantling their specious and duplicitous apologetics, exposing their lies, bringing the critical spotlight to bear upon their strawman caricatures of valid science, their deliberate and wilful misrepresentations thereof, and their numerous insertions of blatant fallacies into their mendacious abuses of discourse. I also tackled, head on, a considerable number of ideological warriors for doctrine, forensically dissecting their mountains of tard, maintaining a reasonably balanced approach, sometimes in the face of numerous extremely cheap and nasty ad hominem attacks levelled at me simply because I did not genuflect before a mythology-based masturbation fantasy, and all of this effort was expounded precisely for the purpose of supporting the very mission RD set out in public. On the basis of this effort, I think I am entitled to conclude that I was not derelict in my duty. My reward for being one of RD's resolute defenders, and for being one of those committed to the same ideals, has been to see myself and other fellow moderation team members pushed under the bus to save the arse of a worthless little twonk, who was granted plenary powers far beyond his ability to deploy them in an adult and mature manner, and whose efforts have inflicted more damage upon RD's programme than the combined efforts of all the world's creationists.

From the above-expounded "perspective", I think I'm entitled to vent some fucking steam, don't you?

[klr]

[Chauncey Gardner]

I really can't believe that the closing of an internet forum is hitting the news. Times are changing. I'm also unable to believe the horrific abuse that is being directed to Richard Dawkins here. This is the ''dark side'' of Internet fan bases: sure, they can shower praise on you, but they can turn in an instant, with the least provocation. I'm really saddened that apparent fans of Dawkins have directed so many insults towards him.

I agree. It is true that the RDF team could have handled the communication better re: changes to the site, but, the amount of scurrilous slander being directed at both richard and josh is incredible.

On a positive note it will hopefully mean that the new discussion area on RD.net will be free of these people. I notice the more (in my opinion) intelligent and valuable contributors to rd.net are remaining tight lipped or supporting richard in all of this.

good for them.

[klr]

Old timers/mods vs noobs bullshit, perhaps? Eh, maybe I'm just imagining things then.

Anyway, http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=9181

Oh you want perspective, do you?

Then allow me to provide some appropriate "perspective", since you are in need of the requisite education.

I spent two and a half years posting and moderating over at RDF, and during that time, I posted close on 13,000 posts, posted something like two million words, cited around 400 scientific papers, and presented around 50 of those in detail, taking care to ensure that the valid science contained in those papers was expounded in such a manner that it was accessible to those without specialist knowledge. I also exercised the effort to take on numerous professional liars for doctrine, such as Rich Deem and the hacks who write for AiG, comprehensively dismantling their specious and duplicitous apologetics, exposing their lies, bringing the critical spotlight to bear upon their strawman caricatures of valid science, their deliberate and wilful misrepresentations thereof, and their numerous insertions of blatant fallacies into their mendacious abuses of discourse. I also tackled, head on, a considerable number of ideological warriors for doctrine, forensically dissecting their mountains of tard, maintaining a reasonably balanced approach, sometimes in the face of numerous extremely cheap and nasty ad hominem attacks levelled at me simply because I did not genuflect before a mythology-based masturbation fantasy, and all of this effort was expounded precisely for the purpose of supporting the very mission RD set out in public. On the basis of this effort, I think I am entitled to conclude that I was not derelict in my duty. My reward for being one of RD's resolute defenders, and for being one of those committed to the same ideals, has been to see myself and other fellow moderation team members pushed under the bus to save the arse of a worthless little twonk, who was granted plenary powers far beyond his ability to deploy them in an adult and mature manner, and whose efforts have inflicted more damage upon RD's programme than the combined efforts of all the world's creationists.

From the above-expounded "perspective", I think I'm entitled to vent some fucking steam, don't you?

Vent away!

[Rawnaeris]

@ sepermeru: I think you should send it.



I hope this doesn't double post...

[Mazille]

I really can't believe that the closing of an internet forum is hitting the news. Times are changing. I'm also unable to believe the horrific abuse that is being directed to Richard Dawkins here. This is the ''dark side'' of Internet fan bases: sure, they can shower praise on you, but they can turn in an instant, with the least provocation. I'm really saddened that apparent fans of Dawkins have directed so many insults towards him.

I agree. It is true that the RDF team could have handled the communication better re: changes to the site, but, the amount of scurrilous slander being directed at both richard and josh is incredible.

On a positive note it will hopefully mean that the new discussion area on RD.net will be free of these people. I notice the more (in my opinion) intelligent and valuable contributors to rd.net are remaining tight lipped or supporting richard in all of this.

good for them.

Get thee behind me, troll.

[goodboyCerberus]

Old timers/mods vs noobs bullshit, perhaps? Eh, maybe I'm just imagining things then.

Anyway, http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=9181

Oh you want perspective, do you?

Not me, Elessarina.

Then allow me to provide some appropriate "perspective", since you are in need of the requisite education.

Excuse me? Who the fuck do you think you are?

I spent two and a half years posting and moderating over at RDF, and during that time, I posted close on 13,000 posts, posted something like two million words, cited around 400 scientific papers, and presented around 50 of those in detail, taking care to ensure that the valid science contained in those papers was expounded in such a manner that it was accessible to those without specialist knowledge. I also exercised the effort to take on numerous professional liars for doctrine, such as Rich Deem and the hacks who write for AiG, comprehensively dismantling their specious and duplicitous apologetics, exposing their lies, bringing the critical spotlight to bear upon their strawman caricatures of valid science, their deliberate and wilful misrepresentations thereof, and their numerous insertions of blatant fallacies into their mendacious abuses of discourse. I also tackled, head on, a considerable number of ideological warriors for doctrine, forensically dissecting their mountains of tard, maintaining a reasonably balanced approach, sometimes in the face of numerous extremely cheap and nasty ad hominem attacks levelled at me simply because I did not genuflect before a mythology-based masturbation fantasy, and all of this effort was expounded precisely for the purpose of supporting the very mission RD set out in public. On the basis of this effort, I think I am entitled to conclude that I was not derelict in my duty. My reward for being one of RD's resolute defenders, and for being one of those committed to the same ideals, has been to see myself and other fellow moderation team members pushed under the bus to save the arse of a worthless little twonk, who was granted plenary powers far beyond his ability to deploy them in an adult and mature manner, and whose efforts have inflicted more damage upon RD's programme than the combined efforts of all the world's creationists.

Yes, I've read this multiple times.

From the above-expounded "perspective", I think I'm entitled to vent some fucking steam, don't you?

Yes, you are. But making lolpictures and comparing the offenders to fucking Polpot, et al. is still childish, and I'm surpised that such actions are coming from you.

[paceetrate]

it's called rational thinking...perhaps some of you should try it sometime, or better still..try it over here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/

Just make it your goddamn sig.

no way. It's just for the angry mob who arrived over the last few days.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/

do you want me to make you a cup of tea before you go?

I'm not touching that forum with a ten foot pole now. Go ahead and keep posting it over and over, though, maybe one of the mods will come along and kick you for spamming.

[Calilasseia]

From the above-expounded "perspective", I think I'm entitled to vent some fucking steam, don't you?

Yes, you are. But its still childish.

Oh pardon me for being a normal human being and not a fucking robot.

Care to go and troll someone else? Only I've better things to do than let you stroke your ego at my expense.

[M]

My god! Are you finally done arguing with Mr. PZMyers? You're as awesome as always Michele

My loverly Paco. I don't think PZ (or Pizzy, as I like to call him now we are aquainted) minded me much.

[goodboyCerberus]

[GenesForLife]

I really can't believe that the closing of an internet forum is hitting the news. Times are changing. I'm also unable to believe the horrific abuse that is being directed to Richard Dawkins here. This is the ''dark side'' of Internet fan bases: sure, they can shower praise on you, but they can turn in an instant, with the least provocation. I'm really saddened that apparent fans of Dawkins have directed so many insults towards him.

Regarding point 1, that is what the evidence says, horrific abuse? what horrific abuse? of what exactly?
Confirmation bias without evidence on the assertion regarding internet "fan bases" , have you been through all the scientific work that kept getting posted and all the ideological stormtroopers who kept getting intellectually pasted by a Cali carpet bomb or two , not to mention Hackenslash and Theropod and Susu.exp and so many others?

That forum wasn't an internet fanbase, it was a place for friends uniting for a cause, and a place to learn where valuable education was available, I will not hesitate to say that the likes of Cali et al got me more involved with science than my entire educational career so far, and if you know how dedicated Cali is towards that end, to the point of taking the trouble to email research papers which require institutional access, you may just begin to appreciate that aspect of the forum,the community, nay, the family, was what it was all about , and deleting user histories , blocking PMs and blocking signatures to impede relocation efforts so that the community could stay in one piece... all of these are "least provocation"?

Aw, come on

And GoodBoyCerberus, I suppose you do realize that while you are entitled to have opinions, you have no rights to force anyone to act on your whims... rant all you want, but please don't expect anyone to put up with it by compulsion.

[95Theses]

It will be interesting to note what happens with the front page now.

These are articles, about Richard, on respected news sites. Do they refuse to allow them? do they allow them but allow only positive comments?

it's going to be a nightmare for them. People who have nothing to do with the forums, and are only front page posters are now starting to comment.

What to do now Mr Timonen?

http://richarddawkins.net/articleCommen ... e36#463923