Announcement about RDF Part 3.

[klr]

(Apparently it was on Radio 2 this morning ...)

Indeed I agree klr. But it might explain the strength of RD's defence of JT. Just speculation, of course.

Damn, must go podcast hunting later.

After a couple of years dealing with certain people on and off, you tend to get a very good 'feel' for how they behave and what makes them tick. The fact that this is not a life and death matter (as has been pointed out) actually makes it more likely that personality traits (and faults) will come to the fore as things wind their way to a conclusion. Just a (very) amateur psychologist waffling ...

[David M]

I bet poor old Josh is feeling rather uncomfortable at the moment then.

Out of the country, on your own, with your boss breathing down your neck. Then your main responsibility goes completely pear shaped, as a result your boss ends up with a huge PR problem that hits the press and you (probably) don't have all the information to hand to give him answers. Also, you've got no colleagues around to talk to about it.

Oh dear, what a pity, never mind.

He deserves it for the gross mismanagement of the change from the first announcement onwards.

This was a big change in direction. There should have been much more information given out about the new system and the reasons for the change. A whole page detailed announcement would have been the proper way of doing things.

[Simon_Gardner]

This appeared on the cif thread a short while ago. I tire and am getting cross... If anyone wants to respond...

VeroniqueD

26 Feb 2010, 4:48PM

It has taken me until now to read most of the comments, vitriol, tantrums and criticisms of what has occurred over at Dawkins' site.

There appear to be a lot of hurt and, I have to say, small egos being bruised by authority figures. PZ Myers has a balanced idea and it behoves people to read his comments on his blog.

Andrew Brown's crowing about contretemps at an atheist site is pathetic. The religites will have a field day and then subside into something else. This article of his is just a nuisance.

Those of us who support the work of Dawkins and others of his calibre will have no brook with the silliness of changing, developing and streamlining web sites. Dawkins' site was unique in many ways; it was also abused in ways that other web sites aren't because of the freedom allowed on Dawkins' site. Most web sites are monitored and utilise filters of various sorts. Dawkins? site was unique in that it let anyone say anything. I can recall only a few times when Josh Timonen can on board and asked for a tone down in language and ad hominem attacks.

Most of the professional working people who have contributed to debate and talks listed on Dawkins' youtube site are pleased to be involved and given another voice in the communities in which they live and operate. Their fields of endeavour and their qualifications are known by everyone.

To listen to a few people whose names are unknown, who have had the ability to bitch and complain that their play toys are being curtailed by the people who run the site, is ridiculous and petty, Mr Brown. Your star does not rise in my estimation.

Those who have written blogs, comments, letters and addresses and pity knows what else all over the internet about how egregious an action has been taken by Dawkins et al really need to get a life. Seriously. One fellow states he has posted 16, 500 odd comments on Dawkins' site. The site has only been up for 3½ years. Good grief. What else does he time to do in his life?

Has the internet and comments threads taken the place of real human relationships with real people in a real world?? It appears so in some remarkable cases. It doesn't augur well to my mind. But that is not Dawkins? fault nor should it be.

Most people think the situation could have been handled better. Maybe it could. I don't know what went behind the scenes; I don't know what is being left out of the complaints brigade; I can see a lot of people jumping on a bandwagon for some inexplicable reason. Maybe youth has something to do with it all.

So, until the whole sorry story is exposed (if ever) honestly then we don't know actually what happened. The moderators are the ones who have the hurts. They applied to become moderators when they were asked for. How many of their egos became puffed up by being accepted as moderators on one of atheism's biggest internet sites, I don't know.

The other complaint is that the 'masterpieces' written by some posters may have been lost to posterity. Well, excuse me. If I write something I consider worthy of note forever, I don't leave the only copy on a web site. How stupid can people be?

More than I had realised, it would seem. There are a few commenters I have noticed who are far more sanguine in their reactions and are obviously more used to internet behaviour than others.

Life goes on; Dawkins' site will be revamped; the people monitoring and moderating will do their work and people will post regardless of the dire threats of maybe 0.01% of the members.

It is still the best and most comprehensive collection site for articles germane to biology and religion and education and information in the wider world. The site also provides a safe haven for emerging atheists to have a voice and find support as they shed the skin of their religious indoctrination. That will never change. It is one thing that Dawkins has shown absolute compassion for. He offers his site for this purpose as much as any other.

I, for one, won't be walking away from such a site merely because some people have their knickers in a knot. Maybe they had it so good for so long that they forgot it isn't their site.

Dawkins has never interfered much in his site and all he needs to do is probably add some more dosh to increase the number of servers and keep things from crashing and being slow.

Other than that, it is a good site.

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

[Ilovelucy]

Simon, much as I'd like to, I'm kind of exhausted from trying to stop the avalanche of bullshit that Dawkins himself helped shake loose. It seems to be the opinion of the entire interwebz that the forum wasn't moderated, even though even the biggest hatchet jobs on the news sites mention there was a team of 15 moderators, and makes mention of "ex moderator" Peter Harrison. I suppose I would fire these guys too if they weren't doing any moderating.

You just cant compete with such wilful stupidity, or the entropy of actual information. Who knows what people will be writing about it in a months time, you know, when we'll all be getting on with things and not caring any more?

[Admiral Valdemar]

People are stupid. Being a cynical misanthrope, I find this situation exonerates my worldview. Doubly so that I find a person I highly respected, whom owned a forum online until recently, has been found wanting when it comes to not being a jackass. Academic smarts do not always beget social smarts, it seems.

To paraphrase Count Dooku: Simon Gardner, you have fought gallantly. Worthy of recognition in the archives of the former RDF forums. Now... it is finished.

[Flora]

Simon, much as I'd like to, I'm kind of exhausted from trying to stop the avalanche of bullshit that Dawkins himself helped shake loose. It seems to be the opinion of the entire interwebz that the forum wasn't moderated, even though even the biggest hatchet jobs on the news sites mention there was a team of 15 moderators, and makes mention of "ex moderator" Peter Harrison. I suppose I would fire these guys too if they weren't doing any moderating.

+1
Sometimes you just have to laugh in order to deal with the lies!

We took abuse from those who complained that the forum was over-moderated and now we're taking abuse because the myth is that the forum wasn't moderated enough!

I could write a journal paper about this exercise in "How to pin the blame for my own monumental cock-up and malicious actions onto other people"
... if I had the energy and will to do it.

[virphen]

Simon, much as I'd like to, I'm kind of exhausted from trying to stop the avalanche of bullshit that Dawkins himself helped shake loose. It seems to be the opinion of the entire interwebz that the forum wasn't moderated, even though even the biggest hatchet jobs on the news sites mention there was a team of 15 moderators, and makes mention of "ex moderator" Peter Harrison. I suppose I would fire these guys too if they weren't doing any moderating.

+1
Sometimes you just have to laugh in order to deal with the lies!

We took abuse from those who complained that the forum was over-moderated and now we're taking abuse because the myth is that the forum wasn't moderated enough!

I could write a journal paper about this exercise in "How to pin the blame for my own monumental cock-up and malicious actions onto other people"
... if I had the energy and will to do it.

I can only imagine how betrayed you guys must feel. I've said it dozens of times, and I'll say it again - I am behind you 100%.

[Valden]

Simon, much as I'd like to, I'm kind of exhausted from trying to stop the avalanche of bullshit that Dawkins himself helped shake loose. It seems to be the opinion of the entire interwebz that the forum wasn't moderated, even though even the biggest hatchet jobs on the news sites mention there was a team of 15 moderators, and makes mention of "ex moderator" Peter Harrison. I suppose I would fire these guys too if they weren't doing any moderating.

+1
Sometimes you just have to laugh in order to deal with the lies!

We took abuse from those who complained that the forum was over-moderated and now we're taking abuse because the myth is that the forum wasn't moderated enough!

I could write a journal paper about this exercise in "How to pin the blame for my own monumental cock-up and malicious actions onto other people"
... if I had the energy and will to do it.

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

My thoughts on the whole fiasco.

[Crazyfrog]

But, personally, I don’t feel I need to take 2 weeks out to reflect on things. Just look at what we already have; a locked forum for 85,000 world-wide users and a PR disaster for Dawkins (just wait for the spin to start). A royal screw-up that, if handled with professionalism and a little more respect for the forum community, need never have occurred.

I’ve already formed my opinion.

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

But, personally, I don’t feel I need to take 2 weeks out to reflect on things. Just look at what we already have; a locked forum for 85,000 world-wide users and a PR disaster for Dawkins (just wait for the spin to start). A royal screw-up that, if handled with professionalism and a little more respect for the forum community, need never have occurred.

I’ve already formed my opinion.

I understand, and you're entitled. But I'm saying it might take a couple weeks to sort out the situation after the likely influx of emails from thousands of people. It's not going to be overnight.

[hackenslash]

Have you sent a similar message to Dawkins? He was quick enough to form an opinion based on a single testimony.

For myself, I do know what happened, because I was there, and the conclusions I have drawn are, as always, based on the most parsimonious explanation of the evidence presented to me.

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

Have you sent a similar message to Dawkins? He was quick enough to form an opinion based on a single testimony.

For myself, I do know what happened, because I was there, and the conclusions I have drawn are, as always, based on the most parsimonious explanation of the evidence presented to me.

You know only one side of it, just like Richard only knows one side of it (presumably). Give the other side time to sort through the emails, etc.

[Styrer]

No fan of the forum was I at RD.net, with its censorious matronly manner to terms and manner of expression. The front pages - my regular, unmoderated haven - were more my speed.

But I sympathize deeply and angrily with all of the turfed-out forummers. Dawkins has committed no less than intellectual destruction on a wanton scale. There have been a few on the front pages who have not taken proper notice of the implications here, preferring to see themselves as the 'winners' in an imaginary contest between the two postal media on offer at the site. They are fucked too, unfortunately.

Deletion of posts on the front pages is now routine business, as it never used to be. A Dawkins-instructed sycophantic illiterate called /Mike has cast his deleterious hand over any message which seeks to communicate the horrid treatment of the forum staff and members in recent days, obliterating at least four of my own comments providing links to this site and to http://www.rationalskeptiks.org/rdf.

Rest in Pieces, RD.net.

What an utter wanker Richard has shown himself to be. Shame on him.

Sean Tyrer

[heyjude]

I don't mean to be a devil's advocate.... but, do you all really think this is a PR disaster for Richard Dawkins? I mean - he's used to getting hounded by the press and various groups for much bigger things on a day to day basis. He does this kind of thing in his sleep! However much everyone might expect this is making him go 'oh shit, maybe I should rethink this decision'.... I honestly think he's done with it. I would guess he's trying to make sure his IT team is not too upset (sigh) and is able to continue with the task he has given them. So what if he has to talk to a few reporters and religious knobs about it... he does that all the time. In a few days it will be over for him... in all reality.

This is not about what's fair.... but that's what happens all the time right?