Wil Cali start again as a newbie under new RDF forums?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Told you.

[Ayaan]

Saviati will be back in a week.

[HrothgirOD]

This is awfully familiar in tone to the current troll
http://sciblogs.co.nz/open-parachute/20 ... -atheists/

Less believer-bashing, please.

I think that too much blogspace is devoted to believer-bashing. If there is a God then he can surely look after himself and human attacks seem like so much time-wasting. If there is no such thing, then it also seems like time-wasting to bother about it. The target really appears to be those people, generally well-meaning in my experience, who happen to subscribe to traditional moral axioms, such as the ‘ten commandments’. Yet, as Kant argued, if everyone actually behaved as though they really believed the ten commendments were issued in the way tradition has it, then the world would probably be a better place, or at least very unlikely to be much worse than it is.

The problem with skepticism is that it is a kind of ‘catch-22′ self-fulfilling negativism. Because, even if everyone else held validly positive beliefs, your own doubt would validly deny its universality. If some smart scientists find inconsistencies in ancient writings (as with the very probably metaphorically intended account of Jonah’s adventure on the high seas), how successful is science in really making the world, as a whole, a better place?

Moreover, there is a kind of ‘holier than thou’ relativism in all this. Scientists themselves subscribe to beliefs, such as the universality of ‘laws of physics’, or the validity of such laws being expressible in mathematical form. If some super-smart thinkers were to pour scorn on such generally uncritically accepted ideas, what would they offer as a better working basis for dealing with understanding and tackling the problems of the world?

Interestingly similar tone... no?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This is awfully familiar in tone to the current troll
http://sciblogs.co.nz/open-parachute/20 ... -atheists/

Less believer-bashing, please.

I think that too much blogspace is devoted to believer-bashing. If there is a God then he can surely look after himself and human attacks seem like so much time-wasting. If there is no such thing, then it also seems like time-wasting to bother about it. The target really appears to be those people, generally well-meaning in my experience, who happen to subscribe to traditional moral axioms, such as the ‘ten commandments’. Yet, as Kant argued, if everyone actually behaved as though they really believed the ten commendments were issued in the way tradition has it, then the world would probably be a better place, or at least very unlikely to be much worse than it is.

The problem with skepticism is that it is a kind of ‘catch-22′ self-fulfilling negativism. Because, even if everyone else held validly positive beliefs, your own doubt would validly deny its universality. If some smart scientists find inconsistencies in ancient writings (as with the very probably metaphorically intended account of Jonah’s adventure on the high seas), how successful is science in really making the world, as a whole, a better place?

Moreover, there is a kind of ‘holier than thou’ relativism in all this. Scientists themselves subscribe to beliefs, such as the universality of ‘laws of physics’, or the validity of such laws being expressible in mathematical form. If some super-smart thinkers were to pour scorn on such generally uncritically accepted ideas, what would they offer as a better working basis for dealing with understanding and tackling the problems of the world?

Interestingly similar tone... no?

Salviati is a puppeteer, so there's probably clones all over the internet.

[charlou]

I don't think it is "nice" for Calilasseia to tell lies -- which is essentially what I believe he was doing.

Can you not understand that these rules about "personal insults" and "playing nice" are utterly subjective and systematically prone to bias and double standards? Can you not see that this makes you look like complete idiots, who bay for the blood of Josh Timonen one minute, and then wring your hands about words like "egomaniac" the next minute? Can you not see that this continual intervention in the threads isn't helping anyone? Are you really too limited a human being to see this clearly?

rationalia staff have not bayed for the blood of anyone.

[Feck]

I don't think it is "nice" for Calilasseia to tell lies -- which is essentially what I believe he was doing.

Can you not understand that these rules about "personal insults" and "playing nice" are utterly subjective and systematically prone to bias and double standards? Can you not see that this makes you look like complete idiots, who bay for the blood of Josh Timonen one minute, and then wring your hands about words like "egomaniac" the next minute? Can you not see that this continual intervention in the threads isn't helping anyone? Are you really too limited a human being to see this clearly?

rationalia staff have not bayed for the blood of anyone.

The play nice rule IS utterly subjective ... that's why it's such a good rule

[FBM]

I don't think it is "nice" for Calilasseia to tell lies -- which is essentially what I believe he was doing.

Can you not understand that these rules about "personal insults" and "playing nice" are utterly subjective and systematically prone to bias and double standards? Can you not see that this makes you look like complete idiots, who bay for the blood of Josh Timonen one minute, and then wring your hands about words like "egomaniac" the next minute? Can you not see that this continual intervention in the threads isn't helping anyone? Are you really too limited a human being to see this clearly?

rationalia staff have not bayed for the blood of anyone.

The play nice rule IS utterly subjective ... that's why it's such a good rule

True that.

[Alan C]

Blood? fuck no, I bay for beer and steak.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

Saviati will be back in a week.

Or (hopefully) not.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Saviati will be back in a week.

Or (hopefully) not.

If he doesn't play nice he'll be gone long the next time.

[Fred Hsu]

Now that the distractor is gone, let me get back to my original topic. It appears from that old forum posts will be preserved after all, after loud complaints from all of us. Great job everyone.

[johnawlock]

It's certainly good that the posts have been preserved - I'm getting my personal subset back courtesy of the very wonderful Nineberry. Returning to my take on Fred's topic...

When I first heard about the RDF cataclysm I put the cause for the schism entirely down to the unsatisfactory 'loose cannon' nature of the RDF's activity (as seen from my perspective) but I can now see that there are underlying cost/benefit issues - the traffic issues stressing the IT and attempts to remedy this (e.g. shutting down the search facility) only making matters worse. No-one likes shelling out for something that is technically clunky and maybe the funds aren't rolling in like before at which point I can see a smaller forum area looking very attractive to RD and his Foundation. It's very notable that an outfit from the other side of the tracks, the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, has no forum in order to present a united front.

My observations in the relatively short time I was posting on RDF was that no sane YEC would bother pitching up there; those that did were like evangelical suicide bombers. I toyed with the idea that they were doing it as a punishment for some transgression they'd committed against whatever sect they emerged from - "21 days on RDF" or some such. They'd turn up, the atheist script-kiddies (ASKs) would pin them down with covering fire and eventually Calilasseia would pitch up from the rear with a big gun loaded with science and verbal pyrotechnics that would go off with a terrific "bang!" to the delight of the assembled RDF ASKs but achieving what? A boost to morale - certainly, but YECs don't read Science and ID people have no great taste for it either when it doesn't do what they want so it would go over their heads. You end up with a scenario of two people with no common ground having a go at each other, both feeling they're achieving something by doing so whereas the reality is possibly rather different. But what do I know? - I never could bring myself to believe that Robert Byers was real. Still can't. I have a vague memory that Myers banned him from Pharyngula for "wilful stupidity" and "being a disgrace to Canada" (or words to that effect) and I felt there was a lot in that 'wilful stupidity'!

Clearly the "new, constrained" forum is going to be even less attractive to YEC/ID types than it was before and any new spin-off forums - diaspora! - are going to have the problem that they won't have Dawkins as a YEC-magnet unless he actively endorses them - like a new monastic order ?the Dawkinicans? There is going to be a need for some people (and I'd include the iconic Calilasseia among them) to re-invent themselves somewhat to operate in RDF2. I hope they do it.

[AshtonBlack]

Now that the distractor is gone, let me get back to my original topic. It appears from that old forum posts will be preserved after all, after loud complaints from all of us. Great job everyone.

A mass of information is great, but unless it's searchable you'd have to know where to look for a specific thread/post.

[Fred Hsu]

Now that the distractor is gone, let me get back to my original topic. It appears from that old forum posts will be preserved after all, after loud complaints from all of us. Great job everyone.

A mass of information is great, but unless it's searchable you'd have to know where to look for a specific thread/post.

That is true. I used to rely on google search "... site:forum.richarddawkins.net"

[devogue]

Erm .... I know I risk complete opprobrium but I'm going to support Salviati here, but with a few disclaimers first:

1) I love Cali to bits - I respect and admire him and I dearly hope to meet him some day. He is an internet legend and his knowledge has always been backed up with voluminous sources and footnotes. He has nothing to prove to anyone.

2) I'm aware Salviati had a very big axe to grind with klr on another thread, so he has previous here - but it should be set aside until he gets shitty, right?

Right.

Now, I was just reading through this thread, enjoying the to-ing and fro-ing and the narkiness - there was nothing overly bitter, nasty, rude, attacking or whatever you want to call it.

As the debate rolled on it turned to whether Cali wanted a footnote or not for helping Dawkins. There were a number of questions - did Cali explicitly say he wanted a mention? did he warrant a mention for his efforts? It seems that Salviati thought not - he gave his reasons why clearly and succinctly and he concluded that Cali has a large ego.

At this point there didn't seem to be any real damage done. Cali is a big boy who has probably heard a fuck lot worse, and I'm sure he would have been able to defend himself easily.

As Salviati put it, he made "a few comments with slightly negative connotations" - and he got suspended for a week. WTF?

Okay, we all like Cali and we don't like Salviati much, but this is overbearing bullshit.