News coverage

[CJ]

Sorry if I have missed this but what evidence do we have that the rickroll link was not in an old post moved to the recycle bin by the moderators? If all attempts to download the forum were impacted by the link then I would think that it was already there hidden in the recycle bin. If early attempts made a successful back up then later ones didn't then I would start to suspect foul play subject to the software being used. Are some download programmes smarter than others?

The recycle bin was a hidden forum where inappropriate posts were moved out of sight rather than being deleted.

[Chris Wilkins]

Secondly, and you're not going to like this, Chris, but the spidey-sense is tingling here, for various reasons that I will not disclose at this time. I am skeptical of your stated motives for being here. Forgive me, but that's how skepticism works. If you are who you say you are, I apologise. Do you have any links to articles you've published before? Any bylines?

DanDare mentioned Chris before (although not by name) as Chris did say in his OP. Dan's a good guy.

I think your spider sense has come up with a non-arachnid this time slack.

I was wondering when someone would ask. Tee hee.

I am basically a comms guy who worked for a large company. But writing about how great their products are, when I know what I am writing is finely concocted bs, can be a drag. And some years ago I realised I wanted to get into journalism. So off I went to the course with the London School of Journalism. Their post-grad course is great and the thing you need if you are going to work for any of the big names in journalism (at least, so I believe). So, no, I don't have ten years of bylines I can point you at. At least not ones in national UK papers. I could show you the two annual reports I have writen but that would be boring, and I've done tons of work for small magazines you have never heard of and other such stuff.

Today my blog is where it is at (for me), really, something I started up not so long ago. If there is any motivation I have it would be to promote my blog, http://www.casualravings.com. If you feel this is a sinister motive, well, I think that's a bit rich. First and foremost I thought this was newsworthy. And I have told the entire story of this story in the other thread "Creationist Sympathises with Dawkins".

If your suspicion is that I am a trojon-horse creationist because I dared to speak to the Dark Lord Ham, well, no. You do that all the time as a journo. Just because you interview someone doesn't mean you agree with them. In fact, unless you are writing a commentary, your own opinion should be kept right out of it. Fact is when I spoke to him I was totally surprised by what he said. Which is why it's such a great story.

On this note, IF the most auspicious and "greatly liked and respected person" Richard Dawkins would bother to give his side of the story, I probably wouldn't have gone to Ham. But if RD won't talk, then I'll interview someone I can.

I will state for the record I accept evolution, I think Charles Darwin was a dude, and I do think creationists are either a bit loony or grew up in a situation where the bible is accepted belief. And if you consider that Darwin was around only, what, 150 years ago, I am not surprised that in such a short time there are still tons of people who think what he said is bs. Hey, the Greeks believed their gods lived on a mountain, and that was only 3,000 years ago. Humans have been around for 100,000, and written history only 10,000. 150 years is really a very short time for such momentus ideas to take hold. Hey, electricity hadn't even been invented in Darwin's time. He probably wrote "The Origin of Species" with a quill and ink pot.

So I hope this lays to rest your concerns. If not, well, I dunno what else to say.

On this note, go read the thread, "Creationist Sympathises with Dawkins" http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... =75&t=9439 . And then go read my blog, http://www.casualravings.com. It is where, in fact, the true story of this story sits.

What are you waiting for? Go on! Do it!Do it now! (this last bit sounds much better when you say with with an Arni voice. Try it. You'll see).

[Chris Wilkins]

If Richard wanted the forum to behave in a different way he should have made a better job of defining what he wanted in the first place. He does not have to destroy what is there to get what he wants either, he simply lacks the creativity of mind and understanding of basic business principles of change management. He desperately needs a Forum Manager to interpret his requirements into instructions for the IT function in a way that does not alienate the membership.

In addition if Richard wanted the forum to change the best possible way to get it to change would of been a post to the forum members themselves. He had access to thousands of intelligent free thinking dedicated individuals FOR FREE! The more I think about this the more it pisses me off to think of a resource like the forum being mishandled by a bunch of keen amateurs.

You know, and this is me being at my most sinister, I found it, dare I say, thought provoking, that on the 27th Jan, less than a month ago, there was a post suggesting the information in the forum be used for a book.

I have my own thoughts on this, but of course one can't say anything on pure speculation.

Any comments?

[Chris Wilkins]

The real reason why the RDF went down;

http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2010/02/ ... eason.html

Tee hee. Have a read. It's quite funny.

[Chris Wilkins]

Now this is cool. Yes, it is something that the christians use to say RD is an abrupt fellow.

BUT, and here is the but, it totally shows his attitude to those who don't agree with him. In the past it was christians and creationists he focused his ire on.

And then the people who disagreed with him changed from the creationists to those at the RDF. And not about creation, but about how to run a forum. And perhaps they got a very similiar reaction from the "greatly liked and respected person" as the christians and creationsists had got in the past.

[Rum]

The real reason why the RDF went down;

http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2010/02/ ... eason.html

Tee hee. Have a read. It's quite funny.

Make sure you read it o the end though!

[JimC]

The real reason why the RDF went down;

http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2010/02/ ... eason.html

Tee hee. Have a read. It's quite funny.

Most amusing indeed...

I pulled this quote amongst tghe multitude...

Richarddawkins.net was just a weird, personality cultish congregation of "freethinking" oddballs anyway

Proably a better view of Rationalia, just minus the personality cult...

[Chris Wilkins]

The real reason why the RDF went down;

http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2010/02/ ... eason.html

Tee hee. Have a read. It's quite funny.

Make sure you read it o the end though!

Oh. Totally. VERY good point.

[hackenslash]

Now this is cool. Yes, it is something that the christians use to say RD is an abrupt fellow.

BUT, and here is the but, it totally shows his attitude to those who don't agree with him. In the past it was christians and creationists he focused his ire on.

And then the people who disagreed with him changed from the creationists to those at the RDF. And not about creation, but about how to run a forum. And perhaps they got a very similiar reaction from the "greatly liked and respected person" as the christians and creationsists had got in the past.

Since we're alll intimately familiar with that video, I can tell you that that isn't a fair representation of Dawkins' attitude. That line was a joke, designed to diffuse a situation with a comic interjection, and was actually a quote of a senior editor at New Scientist.

[Alan B]

Chris,
To get a further idea on how the forum helped the undecided and worried have a look at the 'Are You Leaving Your Religion' thread here on RDF.
That forum was a magnet for those in need of help to make decisions about their religious doubts because they had nowhere else to turn to. Now all that is lost. There are other atheist/humanist fora, but none with the wide ranging scope and attractiveness (to both atheist and theist) of RDF.

[Heresiarch]

Sorry if I have missed this but what evidence do we have that the rickroll link was not in an old post moved to the recycle bin by the moderators? If all attempts to download the forum were impacted by the link then I would think that it was already there hidden in the recycle bin. If early attempts made a successful back up then later ones didn't then I would start to suspect foul play subject to the software being used. Are some download programmes smarter than others?

The recycle bin was a hidden forum where inappropriate posts were moved out of sight rather than being deleted.

The archivers weren't just finding links to to rickrolls in threads. The rd.net server was returning 302 re-direct messages to their requests.

Also, early attempts were being successful, it was only later that the re-directs started happening.

It was also only happening to those trying to archive, so it was probably done using mod rewrite.

Of course, it may have been that the archive attempts were having a detrimental effect on performance of other areas of the site and the admins thought that this was the easiest way to reduce the load.

[95Theses]

Sorry if I have missed this but what evidence do we have that the rickroll link was not in an old post moved to the recycle bin by the moderators? If all attempts to download the forum were impacted by the link then I would think that it was already there hidden in the recycle bin. If early attempts made a successful back up then later ones didn't then I would start to suspect foul play subject to the software being used. Are some download programmes smarter than others?

The recycle bin was a hidden forum where inappropriate posts were moved out of sight rather than being deleted.

I believe that more than one users had wget requests transferred to a rickroll at the same time. Try looking in the threads about the backups I think I saw it there.

[Chris Wilkins]

Now this is cool. Yes, it is something that the christians use to say RD is an abrupt fellow.

BUT, and here is the but, it totally shows his attitude to those who don't agree with him. In the past it was christians and creationists he focused his ire on.

And then the people who disagreed with him changed from the creationists to those at the RDF. And not about creation, but about how to run a forum. And perhaps they got a very similiar reaction from the "greatly liked and respected person" as the christians and creationsists had got in the past.

Since we're alll intimately familiar with that video, I can tell you that that isn't a fair representation of Dawkins' attitude. That line was a joke, designed to diffuse a situation with a comic interjection, and was actually a quote of a senior editor at New Scientist.

You know, normally I would agree with you. But he does have a history of telling those who don't agree with him to go jump, albeit politely, with formal language and usually with no swearing.

Then comes the RDF thingy. He did tell you all to go jump. And I am a great believer of "where there's smoke, there's fire".

Of course, if he returned my requests for an interview, I might have a different opinion as I would be able to judge the man directly myself. But I don't think he's coming out of his shell.

[hackenslash]

I don't think it's like that, TBH. I just think he has accepted uncritically what Josh has told him.

As for the history of telling people to go jump, I'd love to see some examples of that. I'm fairly confident I can explain them in much the same way. The obvious example that will probably come up is the infamous 'what if you're wrong' video. His response to that question was spot on, and a good deal more polite than I'd have been.

This is not a defence of Richard, but a defence of the truth. As you may have gathered, we're pretty keen on that around here.

Edit: BTW, it wasn't the Ken Ham thing that triggered the alarm, just so you can rule that out. It was the tone of the questions, and one other thing which I am not willing ot go into. As it stands, though, an endorsement from Dan is enough to assuage my doubts. Carry on.

[Chris Wilkins]

I don't think it's like that, TBH. I just think he has accepted uncritically what Josh has told him.

As for the history of telling people to go jump, I'd love to see some examples of that. I'm fairly confident I can explain them in much the same way. The obvious example that will probably come up is the infamous 'what if you're wrong' video. His response to that question was spot on, and a good deal more polite than I'd have been.

This is not a defence of Richard, but a defence of the truth. As you may have gathered, we're pretty keen on that around here.

Yeh. See, I don't accept or believe the explanation "It's all evil Josh not telling Richard. If only he knew the truth."

If he truly gave a row of beans about you he would have had direct contact with you all to find out the cause of the upset.

Is it possible this blow up gave him the excuse to do what he wanted to do? A hard pill to swallow, but it wouldn't be the first time such tactics have been used.

Plus the world is full of academics who are arrogant and opininated. If Richard is such a person he would not be the first one.

This of course has nothing to do with his ideas and such like. They are fine and sound. But his behaviour over this thing is contrary to the idea that he is a polite and nice person. Or at least he has not behaved as a nice and polite person in this instance.