News coverage

[hackenslash]

I sincerly hope that on http://www.rationalskepticism.org, the site attempting to replicate the RDF, this is not the case.

The rules at rationalskepticism are an exact replication of the rules at RDF, except that the copyright and material rights rules have been removed.

Incidentally, we're not looking to replicate RDF, we're looking to make it something that RDF is not, namely the free exchange of ideas and, most importantly, open!

[virphen]

What I was referring to was, before the incident, abuse towards people that didn't agree with your point of view. For example, Ken Ham. However, it has been made thoroughly clear to me that this did not happen on RDF, but rather on other sites, such as Phryngula (you have to think about how to spell that). Which does change the meaning somewhat.

Umm, I would say it happened all the time at RDF towards people like Ham and Ray Comfort. Just not perhaps to the true unhinged degree you might find at other places.

Just trying to keep it all truthful here .

[mozg]

I, mozg, being the poster formerly known as mozg on the website http://forum.richarddawkins.net/ am giving my permission for all content that I created on the aforementioned forum to be copied, reproduced, rehosted and/or preserved by any member, moderator or administrator of said forum.

Since I created it, the copyright belongs to me, and my permission is all anyone needs regardless of any boilerplate forum agreement.

[Paul Almond]

I wish the rickrolling would get far more attention than it has been getting. In particular, I wish the media would find it relevant. That, above everything else, shows a cynical attitude towards forum members. I would like to read a statement by Professor Dawkins, either denying that it occurred, or justifying it - which is going to be fairly hard to do. Hopefully, someone will get the chance to ask him in person about this one day.

[tytalus]

I'd enjoy that if it happened, Paul, although I am skeptical that Prof. Dawkins will ever have to answer for that rickroll business. He can of course studiously avoid answering for it, which in itself would speak volumes.

[fuck you & fuck your god]

I, mozg, being the poster formerly known as mozg on the website http://forum.richarddawkins.net/ am giving my permission for all content that I created on the aforementioned forum to be copied, reproduced, rehosted and/or preserved by any member, moderator or administrator of said forum.

Since I created it, the copyright belongs to me, and my permission is all anyone needs regardless of any boilerplate forum agreement.

You gave away those 'rights' to RDnet:

Material Submitted
All materials, photos or videos you submit to any of our forums and other public posting areas become the property of richarddawkins.net and may be reproduced, modified and distributed by richarddawkins.net without restriction, in any medium, and for any purpose. Posting of any material on richarddawkins.net gives expressed waiver and release of any/all rights, legal, moral, or otherwise, to said material(s). (Embedded or linked images/videos hosted elsewhere do not count as submitted material.) You may edit posted material for up to 48 hours after it is initially posted, but you may not edit posts to such an extent that it substantially alters posts to which others have responded.

Which they subsequently gave away by saying members could archive whatever they valued from the site.

[Mac_Guffin]

I contacted the Huffington Post and gave them links to Peter and Hackenslash's blogs. I don't know if they will think the story's unimportant, but I sent it out there.

I'd like to see one news source get it right. :pissed:

[Bella Fortuna]

I'd like to see one news source get it right. :pissed:

+1 It's getting more and more off the mark, it seems, like Chinese Whispers...

[Mac_Guffin]

I'd like to see one news source get it right. :pissed:

+1 It's getting more and more off the mark, it seems, like Chinese Whispers...

We did that in 3rd grade.

[klr]

Just one to say one too. In my earlier posts I was questioning about people being abusive, saying this was not a cool thing to do.

I totally understand the rants and swearing here after the shut down of the site (although some of them might have been a bit on the unhinged side ).

What I was referring to was, before the incident, abuse towards people that didn't agree with your point of view. For example, Ken Ham. However, it has been made thoroughly clear to me that this did not happen on RDF, but rather on other sites, such as Phryngula (you have to think about how to spell that). Which does change the meaning somewhat.

I think I might need to clarify this: Where a creationist or other public figure who drew peoples' ire was not a member of the forum, they were "fair game". But anyone who was a member of the forum was entitled to the same protection as anyone under the rules, and the staff (both during and after my time) were always been quite strong on this, even though at times it made us unpopular with some of the more vocal atheists/rationalists. There was a poster called afdave (real name: Dave Hawkins) who had something of a reputation for bogging down various on-line fora with convoluted creationist arguments, which he would spin out over extended discussions. And so it was at RD.net. One discussion about "flood geology" - using geology to prove that biblical flood actually took place - ran to over 8,000 posts. Yet as long as afdave didn't insult anyone, he was largely free to do what he wished. In fact, a number of opposing posters were sanctioned for attacking him.

[Alan B]

...
I was going to reply to your post on another thread concerning your theory about premeditated dismantling of RDF and quoting this T&C extract. Note the date: January 2010. This morning I looked at the T&C and Hackenslash's name was appended next to the date and they were called 'Revised T&C'. Hack is now no longer there and it is not 'revised'. Is there a copy somewhere of the previous T&C?. Perhaps Hack can shed some light?
As it stands the Revised T&C gives carte blanch to do anything they like.

Blimey. Is this a reference to the RD.net T&C?

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?t=19909

Yes. But why is my URL link different to yours, even though the T&C's have the same dates ?

[CJ]

Just one to say one too. In my earlier posts I was questioning about people being abusive, saying this was not a cool thing to do.

I totally understand the rants and swearing here after the shut down of the site (although some of them might have been a bit on the unhinged side ).

What I was referring to was, before the incident, abuse towards people that didn't agree with your point of view. For example, Ken Ham. However, it has been made thoroughly clear to me that this did not happen on RDF, but rather on other sites, such as Phryngula (you have to think about how to spell that). Which does change the meaning somewhat.

I think I might need to clarify this: Where a creationist or other public figure who drew peoples' ire was not a member of the forum, they were "fair game". But anyone who was a member of the forum was entitled to the same protection as anyone under the rules, and the staff (both during and after my time) were always been quite strong on this, even though at times it made us unpopular with some of the more vocal atheists/rationalists. There was a poster called afdave (real name: Dave Hawkins) who had something of a reputation for bogging down various on-line fora with convoluted creationist arguments, which he would spin out over extended discussions. And so it was at RD.net. One discussion about "flood geology" - using geology to prove that biblical flood actually took place - ran to over 8,000 posts. Yet as long as afdave didn't insult anyone, he was largely free to do what he wished. In fact, a number of opposing posters were sanctioned for attacking him.

Just to support Kevin's point. There were fundies who would behave in a way specifically designed to illicit a personal attack on them to get an atheist member a warning and it worked on a number of occasions.

Professor Dawkins is not above ridiculing creationists

Watch the clip from 1:50 onwards

[klr]

...
I was going to reply to your post on another thread concerning your theory about premeditated dismantling of RDF and quoting this T&C extract. Note the date: January 2010. This morning I looked at the T&C and Hackenslash's name was appended next to the date and they were called 'Revised T&C'. Hack is now no longer there and it is not 'revised'. Is there a copy somewhere of the previous T&C?. Perhaps Hack can shed some light?
As it stands the Revised T&C gives carte blanch to do anything they like.

Blimey. Is this a reference to the RD.net T&C?

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?t=19909

Yes. But why is my URL link different to yours, even though the T&C's have the same dates ?

Ah! One is a re-direct to the other I think. Originally there were two separate documents - "Forum Rules" and "Forum Users' Agreement". It was long felt that the two document should be merged into one, and once this was done, the links to the one that were deleted were updated to redirect. Something like that anyway.

[mozg]

I, mozg, being the poster formerly known as mozg on the website http://forum.richarddawkins.net/ am giving my permission for all content that I created on the aforementioned forum to be copied, reproduced, rehosted and/or preserved by any member, moderator or administrator of said forum.

Since I created it, the copyright belongs to me, and my permission is all anyone needs regardless of any boilerplate forum agreement.

You gave away those 'rights' to RDnet:

Material Submitted
All materials, photos or videos you submit to any of our forums and other public posting areas become the property of richarddawkins.net and may be reproduced, modified and distributed by richarddawkins.net without restriction, in any medium, and for any purpose. Posting of any material on richarddawkins.net gives expressed waiver and release of any/all rights, legal, moral, or otherwise, to said material(s). (Embedded or linked images/videos hosted elsewhere do not count as submitted material.) You may edit posted material for up to 48 hours after it is initially posted, but you may not edit posts to such an extent that it substantially alters posts to which others have responded.

Which they subsequently gave away by saying members could archive whatever they valued from the site.

They can say anything they want, and usually will, to make you think you have less rights than you do. As far as that goes, they can repost material without my permission, but what they can't do is tell me that I can't reproduce it, or allow someone else of my choosing to do so, regardless of what their agreement says.

Remember that just because someone puts something in writing does not mean it is enforceable or even legal.

[Alan B]

Ah! One is a re-direct to the other I think. Originally there were two separate documents - "Forum Rules" and "Forum Users' Agreement". It was long felt that the two document should be merged into one, and once this was done, the links to the one that were deleted were updated to redirect. Something like that anyway.

That makes sense. But it would still be nice to see the 'old' T&C before it was revised in Jan. 2010. It might be shown that there is a marked difference that could give credence to your theory.