First reaction by Richard Dawkins.

[Ilovelucy]

He was quite happy to post in that trivial forum when he needed help.

Oh, you mean like when he asked for help for his new book for children? That was, like, two weeks ago or so, wasn't it?

Or hawking his wife's artwork. Or when he sometimes got tired of antics on the Front Page, and told people that if they really wanted to discuss XYZ, they could go and start a thread on the forum.

We don't forget much.

...or when he wanted to flog the typewriter he wrote the selfish gene on, or when someone on another forum (who was actually a member of the RDF) criticised his views on non-random natural selection so Richard called him a "patronising little twerp"...

[normal]

He was quite happy to post in that trivial forum when he needed help.

Oh, you mean like when he asked for help for his new book for children? That was, like, two weeks ago or so, wasn't it?

Or hawking his wife's artwork. Or when he sometimes got tired of antics on the Front Page, and told people that if they really wanted to discuss XYZ, they could go and start a thread on the forum.

We don't forget much.

...or when he wanted to flog the typewriter he wrote the selfish gene on, or when someone on another forum (who was actually a member of the RDF) criticised his views on non-random natural selection so Richard called him a "patronising little twerp"...

Hmh.. Strange that. I remember all these episodes

[klr]

He was quite happy to post in that trivial forum when he needed help.

Oh, you mean like when he asked for help for his new book for children? That was, like, two weeks ago or so, wasn't it?

Or hawking his wife's artwork. Or when he sometimes got tired of antics on the Front Page, and told people that if they really wanted to discuss XYZ, they could go and start a thread on the forum.

We don't forget much.

...or when he wanted to flog the typewriter he wrote the selfish gene on, or when someone on another forum (who was actually a member of the RDF) criticised his views on non-random natural selection so Richard called him a "patronising little twerp"...

And someone gleefully reminded him of the rules in his own house, and he had to apologise. But that debate was a prime example for me of why RD might not like the public environment. Once he enters a discussion such as that, he can find it very hard to extricate himself from it - no proper "exit strategy". Too many other people just won't let go of the chance to take someone of his stature on direct. I watched RD enter that debate and as it unfolded, I saw him getting more and more agitated, with definite signs of petulance creeping in. At one stage he announced that he was leaving the thread, but (shades of Shaker's Law!), came back for another bite.

[Luis Dias]

IOW, he's a forum n00b!

[Arcanyn]

You know...I can actually sort of understand him. I mean Dawkins.
Think of it...he doesn't really know us, as he hasn't posted much on the forum. He just knows there is a forum out there attached to the website bearing his name, and with some luck he knows that it was quite a busy place. Then his friend shuts the thing down, and all he knows that it would likely be for some good reason (well, likely it isn't but that is what Dawkins has likely been thinking so far). So then shit hits the fan, and he peeks around the corner, and what does he see? Well, certainly not just people who are calmly and rationally explaining their point. Maybe those were there, but there was also lots of people yelling quite some abusive things. And I am sure that all the pm's and emails weren't so nice either. Remember, it's still his friend they were talking about, a person he trusts. I dunno, but if I'd see such a vitorlic mob, my thought would be 'well, nice sideffect getting rid of those as well!'.

Many people have not just shot themselves in the foot, but royally nuked their own feet until all the legs of our cause were gone and evaporated.

Yes, the way things have been handled was not right, though the big guy on the website is of course, within his rights to change and remove things. But he should have handled it much better.
But then again, we also should have.

I think it's not likely that Dawkins would take any forum person really serious anymore, after all the abuse.

We're talking about a forum of 85,000 people here. Even if the vast majority of people are well-behaved, it is statistically inevitable that there will be a large number of people who respond in a non-constructive manner. Even if 99.9% of people are well behaved, with 85,000 members you're still going to get a flood of 85 abusive, unproductive emails/PMs. That's simply what happens when you have a sufficiently large group of people who aren't all clones of one another. It is hardly reasonable to expect that every single one of those 85,000 people would independently choose to present their grievances in a calm and well reasoned manner with not a single individual resorting to cruder tactics - the probability of that is practically zero - and it is unfair (and not to mention a gross misrepresentation) to construe the actions of a minority whose existence would be inevitable regardless of the overall quality of the membership as representative of the group as a whole. Dawkins, if he is as rational as he likes to make out, should know this, rather than taking the easy road and using the fact that there were some people who responded unproductively as proof that we're all evil sinners. When applied to a group that large, the group is damned regardless, because what the criticism amounts to is damning 85,000 people for failing to live up to the impossible standard of not having a single bad egg. It's no different to noting all the serial killers in a particular country (which is of course, inevitable in any sufficiently large nation), and then vilifying every citizen of the whole country on that basis for failing to be serial killer-free.

[Witticism]

My view is that PZ came on this site like buffer on a train to take the shock out of a sudden stop. Do you think that PZ has not had a chat to Dawkins before posting? Dawkins as far as I’m concerned is beyond the pale.

No I think PZ is his own man and came to have a look for himself.

Also, despite his protestations to the contrary on his blog, I suspect he is a bit of a fan of drama

Richard however has gone totally off the deep end and selectively quoted 3-4 posts from on here, after everything had happened and now appears to be implying that every member of his forums was unmitigated scum that deserved everything they got.

After reading his post on RDF.net I have come t the distinct impression that being a member on his own forums has taught me to think about things a little more clearly and rationally than he is able to. Certainly that level of creative quote mining and mis-characterization would have been shot down in flames had a creationist attempted to use it on the old forums.

The whole post seems to be a bit of a whine that some nasty people said bad things about his friend.

As the great Stephen Fry says 'Oh, you're offended? so fucking what? it's nothing more than a whine'

I was just archiving some of my posts at RDF's were I vehemently defended the Good Prof against ad hom attacks from Theists whose specious arguments and capricious quote mining totally misrepresented him.

Whenever I saw a post that was a clear lie about Richard I would jump all over that post like white on rice ... sometimes going so far as to not but any lolcats in my post ... I must've been being extremely serious!

Pitty I wont have a chance to do the same to defend the members of his forum against his rant riddled with quote mines.

Speaking of quote-mining, I once watched a lecture by a great man who explained the nefarious tactics of quote-mining that some use to discredited him.

Who was that person ... oh yeah ...

If only the pot would take the advice of the kettle

[eXcommunicate]

This whole episode reminds me of the moment I realized a few years ago that the grandfather I loved so dearly when I was a kid, is actually kind of an asshole.

[David M]

What do you say to those who argue that you are so entrenched in your anger/irrational thinking/whatever that even if you find out the precise reason they suddenly back peddled on their promise (to keep the forum open for 30 days) and closed comments on the forum, they are all lying bastards anyway?

Because they have made statements detailing the reasons why they back-pedalled on their earlier promise and those are lies, and people have posted the evidence that proves they have not been telling the truth.

Thanks to your blog and others lapping up your take on events, the RDF team are already hung, drawn and quartered, before we even find out the precise sequence of events and what EXACTLY happened (not your speculations) in between the announcement that the forum will be kept alive for 30 days and suddenly closing comments.

We know the precise timeline of events because people have been savvy enough to preserve the evidence. We have a copy of the deleted "dissent" thread which contains no personal attacks directed at Josh or Dawkins, we have the timestamps that show that the "attacks" now used to justify shutting down the forum happened many hours after the forum shutdown.

Because the forum is still available we can see that posters had their entire posting history deleted and that Private messaging has been crippled.

They deserve to be hung, drawn and quartered in the arena of public opinion for gross mismanagement of a major change to their website and for lying about the sequence of events.

EDIT - Ignore the above, its turns out Chauncey is just another pathetic internet troll parading his immaturity for all to see.

[M]

Oddly, they are far more important thatn you think if you move in circles where the majority are vocally theist (working class, low education, rural communities throughout all countries, I reckon). You may have bigger comfort zones in your real world than many forum members. It's all about trying to see things from a different perspective and I don't think RD is able to see far beyond the hallowed halls.

Have you ever been to Morris, Minnesota? Working class, rural, major industry is farming, almost entirely Republican, with a small college plunked down in the middle of it. We've got 14 churches for 5000 people. I have virtually no comfort zone at all. I'm known as the village atheist. The Stevens County council of churches has condemned me.
I've talked with many people who would agree with you entirely, that the internet is an important lifeline for isolated atheists. Richard Dawkins is aware of the importance of the internet, too.
I'm just saying that focusing on one forum and one style of communication is a big mistake. Internet forums regularly implode into shouting cliques like this, get used to it. It's part of the ecosystem.

I consider myself fortunate to be able to overlook the faith of many of my friends; they don't bring it to my table, I don't seek to pull it out from beneath them. I believe that we be important to one another despite our differences.
But if I want to discuss my lack of faith, or science, or creation, or evolution, etc, etc, I head to the fora. However, as a non-academic (no recognisable qualifications, hourly paid manual work, mother of 2 young children) I always felt that I didn't fit in at RDF, but I persisted because there were things I needed to know and people I came to respect and like there. Subsequently, I came here as well.
Please tell me what else you would do if you can imagine yourself to be someone like me? (I get the feeling that you are rather more in touch with reality than Richard Dawkins; it's my belief that he wouldn't have the first clue what it might be like to be someone like me.)

[Xeno]

Chauncey Gardner here, Fred Kite on another thread, both Peter Sellers characters; possibly his left and right socks.

[klr]

Chauncey Gardner here, Fred Kite on another thread, both Peter Sellers characters; possibly his left and right socks.

Bloody hell. Good spot.

I've reported your post just to alert the staff to it. They'll probably want to do some IP checking ...

[fredbear]

Chauncey Gardner here, Fred Kite on another thread, both Peter Sellers characters; possibly his left and right socks.

i was going to call that one xeno but i thought cg was a valued member of this forum. but it was something in the style, the repetition, the smell.
is yours a hunch too or do you have evidence?

[Coito ergo sum]

This whole episode reminds me of the moment I realized a few years ago that the grandfather I loved so dearly when I was a kid, is actually kind of an asshole.

In this case, though, realizing that Dawkins was insensitive, not a people-person, and not particularly "touchy feely" is like Claude Rains in Casablanca announcing "I'm shocked! Shocked to find that gambling is going on in here." (followed by the roulette guy handing him his winnings).

[klr]

Chauncey Gardner here, Fred Kite on another thread, both Peter Sellers characters; possibly his left and right socks.

i was going to call that one xeno but i thought cg was a valued member of this forum. but it was something in the style, the repetition, the smell.
is yours a hunch too or do you have evidence?

I'd say the hunch is a very good one indeed. Having been a mod/admin back at RD.net myself, you get a "nose" for puppetry like this. Anyway, the staff will investigate .. and act.

[fredbear]

Chauncey Gardner here, Fred Kite on another thread, both Peter Sellers characters; possibly his left and right socks.

i was going to call that one xeno but i thought cg was a valued member of this forum. but it was something in the style, the repetition, the smell.
is yours a hunch too or do you have evidence?

I'd say the hunch is a very good one indeed. Having been a mod/admin back at RD.net myself, you get a "nose" for puppetry like this. Anyway, the staff will investigate .. and act.

i actually deleted a post about it as i recalled one of the mods saying there was no puppetry but fredkite only joined this am but he seemed keen to bash the new peeps but keen to deflect criticism of the old members here. i didn't want to cause trouble. but something smelled.