Outraged atheists lose faith in Dawkins as he censors websit

[klr]

My comment wasn't accepted. Quelle surprise.

What did it say?

[j.mills]

It's the middle of the night here in the UK - the Times moderators may be tucked up in bed...

[sepermeru]

This is so fucking frustrating. Those quotes never appeared on Dawkins' site and were never directed as attacks against him. That's like saying if you kick me out of your house, then follow me home, sneak in and eavesdrop on what I say about you, I'm attacking you. These stories are all based on a completely false presumption, and it just keeps spreading. I wish someone with enough influence to be listened to would set the record straight with the Times.

[klr]

This is so fucking frustrating. Those quotes never appeared on Dawkins' site and were never directed as attacks against him. That's like saying if you kick me out of your house, then follow me home, sneak in and eavesdrop on what I say about you, I'm attacking you. These stories are all based on a completely false presumption, and it just keeps spreading. I wish someone with enough influence to be listened to would set the record straight with the Times.

Excellent analogy, the best I've heard yet on this point. I think you should try and submit that.

[ficklefiend]

Oh, nice bit of muck-raking there.

It's kinda good to see these things don't happen in a vacuum. That volume of pissed off people will cause ripples.

[Paul1]

Just an editorial re-organization, which will include a change such that the choice of new threads will be subject to editorial control. Editorial control, mark you, by the person who, more than any other individual, has earned the right to the editor’s chair by founding the site in the first place, then maintaining its high standard by hard work and sheer talent.

What can I say? Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Richie seems to think we're objects, but he has a surprise coming since I never plan to return to his site. I was planning, but considering how many other volunteers put their time and effort in to help Richie create his site, I hardly think he has the sole moral right to become a 1984 style editor. Of course, having had several other cocky lecturers at uni, it doesn't really surprise me that the power has gone to his head.

This his site and he may do with it what he wishes. And we have our feet and we may vote how we wish with them.

How can anybody feel that strongly about something so small?

Something so small it made the news and you had to comment on it Richie. At the end of the day, it wasn't necessary to destroy a community, but you did anyway. Your post mimics the emotional appeal of a hysterical bible basher.

[pErvinalia]

I'm desperate to get onto that Times article and leave a comment, but I am having no luck registering for comments. The first time I tried, the link in the registration email returned an error. I've tried two more times with different email details and none of those attempts has generated a registration email. Do you think that they know I am a raving atheist who is about to pile it on?

[paceetrate]

I just "piled it on", we'll see if it gets posted...

I do love how this keeps blowing up though. It goes from Pharygula, to the newspaper blogs, to the newspapers themselves, and every time we jump in to fill the comments page with corrections. I have a feeling that Josh and Chalkers didn't expect, or want, this to blow up this big when they made their dodgy moves. Their attempt at suppressing the story have backfired somewhat.

This is how the internet works, it's called The Streisand Effect. The only person you can successfully censor on the internet is yourself. To try to censor others is the worst possible thing you could ever do.

[heyjude]

Another paper covers it ..... well... sort of.

The Guardian

[MissingNo.]

Another paper covers it ..... well... sort of.

The Guardian

Ugh, that article is irritating. It seems like he's gone a lot further than most journalists to get the RD.net forum user's side of the story but he's still misrepresenting your position.

The case against Dawkins, from his users, is being put in comments here. The real anger came from the summary dismissal of the (unpaid) moderators in an email from the site administrator who was later the subject of the abuse quoted above:

He freaking links to Peter Harrison's blog and even a cursory reading of the post would be sufficient to understand that the angry comments were spurred mostly from the draconian measures of censorship. Yes, the callous disregard for the dedication of the moderators was part of it but it was mostly the spiteful, underhanded way the IT team was censoring any dissent and destroying thousands of posts unnecessarily. For fuck's sake, I had never even heard of the RD.net forums before this incident and I grasped this within five minutes. Why is it so hard for these people?

Brown, from the comments:

I have to say that when I see people had made 7,000 posts on the board in three years, this might be read as evidence of a vibrant community, or it might be that they need to get out more.

I really resent the implication here. Just because a community is virtual doesn't make it less valuable. Communicating through text is still communicating. From what I understand, the forum provided valuable information, stimulating debates and a vibrant social community. They don't need to be told to get a life.

[heyjude]

Brown, from the comments:

I have to say that when I see people had made 7,000 posts on the board in three years, this might be read as evidence of a vibrant community, or it might be that they need to get out more.

I really resent the implication here. Just because a community is virtual doesn't make it less valuable. Communicating through text is still communicating. From what I understand, the forum provided valuable information, stimulating debates and a vibrant social community. They don't need to be told to get a life.

It is rather like Richard Dawkin's take on it too. It kinda reminds me of someone I work with. His daughter plays video games and he really doesn't get it and doesn't like it. In fact... he completely doesn't understand the entire gaming phenomenon, and hence, decides that it is an invalid activity. He's not willing to take the time to see that other people gain something wonderful and enjoyable from it, simply because he doesn't like it. I hate it, therefore it has no value. Nice reasoning. People alienated by aspects technology seem to find it very easy to say this stuff about people who use it.

[Robert_S]

Brown, from the comments:

I have to say that when I see people had made 7,000 posts on the board in three years, this might be read as evidence of a vibrant community, or it might be that they need to get out more.

I really resent the implication here. Just because a community is virtual doesn't make it less valuable. Communicating through text is still communicating. From what I understand, the forum provided valuable information, stimulating debates and a vibrant social community. They don't need to be told to get a life.

When I see someone with a vast body of papers and books on evolution and science plus one on religion by one person over a career, this might read as evidence of vibrant intellect; or it could be that someone just needed to get out more.

[Ilovelucy]

Well, my response and Callie's response weren't accepted. This reminds me of why I buy the Indie and the Guardian. They seemed very happy to print responses byt Christians saying how horrible this makes Christians look. Still, I still remind myself that this is not what they wanted to happen when they shafted us. Chalkers must be shitting himself.

[klr]

Well, my response and Callie's response weren't accepted. This reminds me of why I buy the Indie and the Guardian. They seemed very happy to print responses byt Christians saying how horrible this makes Christians look. Still, I still remind myself that this is not what they wanted to happen when they shafted us. Chalkers must be shitting himself.

I would have thought the Times - that great organ of repute - would be more even handed.

But then I remembered who owns it.

EDIT: In case that's not clear to some people not from these parts, I'll clarify. I hope Richard Dawkins is happy that Rupert Murdoch is acting as PR man for him.

[Ilovelucy]

Well, my response and Callie's response weren't accepted. This reminds me of why I buy the Indie and the Guardian. They seemed very happy to print responses byt Christians saying how horrible this makes Christians look. Still, I still remind myself that this is not what they wanted to happen when they shafted us. Chalkers must be shitting himself.

I would have thought the Times - that great organ of repute - would be more even handed.

But then I remembered who owns it.

EDIT: In case that's not clear to some people not from these parts, I'll clarify. I hope Richard Dawkins is happy that Rupert Murdoch is acting as PR man for him.

I think that the editorial remit for the comments is not to have one viewpoint repeated, so as soon as someone posts the timeline of events, they treat all others as a duplicate. They do this so that they show they are a paper that shows all sides of the story and are read and commented on by people of all attitudes and opinions. It is more a construct that says something about the paper, a mythology. Those of us that don't think post modernism is bollocks have a wonderful case study right here.