Apology from Richard Dawkins (Yes Really).

[Bella Fortuna]

I have reservations as well, and wonder if any further investigation of Josh and Co. will be done or if they will be held accountable, but it was good of him to write this.

I don't expect there will be any further investigation.

Nor do I.

[Valden]

Apology accepted.

I am glad they'll get the old forum up in read-mode only though!

But the damage to some of us has already been done. (Those of us who were completely deleted.) And can't be undone, that I know of.

I still want nothing to do with the RDF. I will not be part of the new forum either. But I'm glad Richard actually read the letters, and that he decided to respond.

However, I still believe Josh is a jackass for his behavior (along with Andrew, but it seems the majority of it was done by Josh) nor will I apologize for it.

[Matt H]

This is as far as it will go, which is why I think we should be cautious about accepting this apology.

Of course it is welcome and a good thing, but there are thousands of posts missing.

[Valden]

This is as far as it will go, which is why I think we should be cautious about accepting this apology.

Of course it is welcome and a good thing, but there are thousands of posts missing.

Sadly. Josh really fucked up when he did that, and to me it's unforgivable. I consider it to be the same as burning a book.

[normal]

This was a very decent thing to do. Even though I haven't invested a lot of emotion into the taking down of the forum I feel a bit relieved now.

[goodboyCerberus]

I only have two reservations:

1. Is there any way to recover valuable science- and reason-realated posts that were deleted by Josh?
(I doubt it and Dawkins should apologize for this as well.)

2. Will the new discussion area allow for people to come out as atheists and ask for help and education?
(Hopefully this can get integrated later thought petitions.)

[Ilovelucy]

The forum isn't getting deleted any more, and he's acknowledged that the story the forum was closed because of the comments that were actually made here isn't true. I doubt I'l be going back to the new site, but I think that this has done a good amount to rectify some of the wrongs. I'm not out for blood or vengeance. Hopefully some of the journos will read this and correct themselves too.

[klr]

I don't want to nitpick, but I can see one obvious issue with the statement, namely that RD knows that the offending comments were from elsewhere after the event. So we still don't have any justification that I can see for the initial lock-down, since no evidence has been provided of any offending comments made at RD.net in the immediate aftermath of the initial announcement. I doubt it will ever be provided, since it doesn't exist. Maybe this would just be too much to come out and admit. He's going an awful long way as it is.

He also didn't pick up on the point that had the comments been made on his own site, directed outwards at some third party (as were the comments here), then they would have been allowable. But it's quite possible (indeed probable) that this point has escaped him, as there were a lot of details to cover.

Other than that though, it's a highly impressive statement.

I'm looking for coded messages though ... there must be some in there somewhere.

This is as far as it will go, which is why I think we should be cautious about accepting this apology.

Of course it is welcome and a good thing, but there are thousands of posts missing.

I assume that he's well aware of this. I'm prepared to wait and see.

Despite his glowing public endorsement of Josh, privately there may have been a few choice words.

The forum isn't getting deleted any more, and he's acknowledged that the story the forum was closed because of the comments that were actually made here isn't true. I doubt I'l be going back to the new site, but I think that this has done a good amount to rectify some of the wrongs. I'm not out for blood or vengeance.

+1

Hopefully some of the journos will read this and correct themselves too.

And again.

[virphen]

This is as far as it will go, which is why I think we should be cautious about accepting this apology.

Of course it is welcome and a good thing, but there are thousands of posts missing.

Then I suggest people make a comment on the thread there asking for the forum to be restored from the last backup before the "troubles". see comment #5 .

[Heresiarch]

For me, this goes a long way towards making amends for the PR disaster the the closing of the forums was. If he's only taken the time to make an eloquent statement similar to that before the fact, instead of leaving it to a tech not trained in dealing with people, the whole thing would have been so much different.

Still, kudos to Dawkins for actually clarifying things, rather that leave open wounds suppurating between himself and part of the community.

[Conny]

On rationalskepticism.org, crank pointed everyone to this part:

How does one square, Outrage:

You will notice that the forum has in fact been closed to comments (not taken down) sooner than the 30 days alluded to in the letter. This is purely and simply because of the over-the-top hostility of the comments that were immediately sent in.

with Apology:

OF COURSE the vile comments I quoted were not made on our forum, and it was never my intention to suggest that they were, or that it was these comments that had led to its closure.

I accept RD's apology, yet i'd like to know then why it must remain read only for the next 28 or 30 days.

[Salviati]

I doubt it will ever be provided, since it doesn't exist. Maybe this would just be too much to come out and admit.

So says Kevin Ronayne, the most unscrupulous and dishonest moderator in history.

[Blondie]

Now can we please all move on?

I am fairly satisfied with Richards apology, it's the best we can reasonably expect. The concession he's made in leaving the old forum up as a fully searchable archive goes a long way toward resolving my angst with him. His continued defence of Josh is to be expected, and an apology from Josh would certainly surprise me - I have no expectation of one, and I don't require one either. Before this fiasco few people knew his name, I'd like it if he was as quickly forgotten. Also the fact that Richard confirmed that individual posts would not be pre-moderated was nice. I'm in partial agreement with the pre-moderation of topics - dependent upon how it is ultimately instantiated and how closely the judgement of the moderation matches the ethos of the secularist community. However, this all being the case, I do not think it could have been achieved without the hard work of the people, former moderators and plebs alike, who have taken time out of their schedules to protest the gross injustice that had been committed and the foul misrepresentation the community had suffered as a whole under Richard's "Outrage". So, you must understand, I find your comment not only out of place, but also course, vulgar, uninformed, and fatuous. It is an insult to the very people I just praised.

[normal]

On rationalskepticism.org, crank pointed everyone to this part:

How does one square, Outrage:

You will notice that the forum has in fact been closed to comments (not taken down) sooner than the 30 days alluded to in the letter. This is purely and simply because of the over-the-top hostility of the comments that were immediately sent in.

with Apology:

OF COURSE the vile comments I quoted were not made on our forum, and it was never my intention to suggest that they were, or that it was these comments that had led to its closure.

I accept RD's apology, yet i'd like to know then why it must remain read only for the next 28 or 30 days.

It will remain read only forever

[Heresiarch]

I don't want to nitpick, but I can see one obvious issue with the statement, namely that RD knows that the offending comments were from elsewhere after the event. So we still don't have any justification that I can see for the initial lock-down, since no evidence has been provided of any offending comments made at RD.net in the immediate aftermath of the initial announcement. I doubt it will ever be provided, since it doesn't exist. Maybe this would just be too much to come out and admit. He's going an awful long way as it is.

The most likely explanation for this is that they interpreted the mods plans to work to rule as the mods not going to be doing any moderation. When the 2-3 threads that were one user attacking another started to show up, they over-reacted and once they'd pulled the plug there was no reliable means of communication to rectify the situation.

I'm not privy to anything that went on between the mods and admins, but that sounds like a reasonable theory.