New RDF website to be launched next week

[Feck]

So who is pre-approving the threads and who is moderating ?

Twiddledumb and Twiddledumber (in the context of this particular charade)?

Oh well then ..You can tell how excited I am can't you ?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It will be clean, steely-eyed and free of the infection of atheists with any sense of humour at all...

Meaning I'll be banned on Day One?

Nah. The rest of us might be banned on Day One. You'll be "pre-banned".

I've worked hard for that. I deserve it.

[kiki5711]

So who is pre-approving the threads and who is moderating ?

Twiddledumb and Twiddledumber (in the context of this particular charade)?

[AshtonBlack]

http://www.richarddawkins.net/

(This was at 10:00 GMT.)


Edit: Ahhh the new one. (5/5/10)

[Feck]

Mmmm Baloney detection kit ?

[Thinking Aloud]

I think the "new forum" announcement hinted that the whole thing was being adjusted.

[CJ]

I'm so excited

[kiki5711]

yeauppppp they's a see uc cummin round da bend!!!!!

[ficklefiend]

I'm so excited

You just can't hide it?

[CJ]

I'm so excited

You just can't hide it?

I'm about to lose control and I think I like it!

[klr]

I'm so excited

You just can't hide it?

I'm about to lose control and I think I like it!

... end of thread methinks.

[CJ]

Unless we repeat the chorus

[kiki5711]

We will
we will rock you, rock you

We will
we will rock you, rock you

[lordpasternack]

Well, last night there were a couple of bona fide web-developers calling the proposed changes to the site "amateur" - echoing a few things IT guys here have said about RD.net and Josh's unwillingness and/or inability to correct what look like rather basic faults - and I'm starting to see that in full resolution.

Any other web-developer would be falling over themselves for such constructive criticism, from professionals working in their field, no less - but then, we know Josh won't likely become interested in that anytime soon.

I think I now know what he means when he makes such galling remarks as "we are all very excited" with a straight face in the face of practically unanimous disagreement. Who exactly is this "we… all"? Because it can't bloody well be the end-users... Yes, I think I have a reasonable hypothesis now: it's Josh and his wanking partners. I think Josh views the predominant role of the site as being there to wank his ego silly over its glorious aesthetic, and he neither requires nor invites any further validation from anyone else (other than those he NEEDS to cooperate with) for it to serve that purpose. He doesn't need to fix any of those basic little glitches so long as they don't start to encroach on his enormous feeling of wellbeing in regarding his artwork. Forums and PMs and smilies make him go all floppy? Well, off they go - never mind what anyone else says.

In fact the young man has such an allergy to listening to any contrary views, which of course spoil ALL the fun, that he's only too willing to bring out that steamrollering bully in him in the face of even mild criticism. I mean, forum staff he can get away with simply ignoring and dismissing for several months, but how the hell do you deal with being faced with a whole growing thread full of people all saying sickeningly calmly and reasonably that they don't like your ideas? You teach 'em all a good lesson on how they ought to be behavin', dontcha?

In fact, I hold Josh to be just exactly the sort of person who would rather allow Richard Dawkins himself embarrass himself by publishing something Josh knows to be grossly inaccurate, rather than choose to come clean at the opportune moment, insofar as this continues to console Josh and his ego. Never mind that it'll piss people off all the more, and it's so wilfully deceitful and all that.

And do you think he would have come clean and apologised in the end were it not for combined efforts to get the truth of the matter out once and for all? I have me doots. But hey, what's a little rampant dishonesty, flagrant abuse of trust, deep selfishnesss and utter lack of integrity between close friends? Utterly excusable and worth taking all the blame yourself
for. Of course, in any other person, Richard would immediately view such actions with rather deep contempt - but when they're all wrapped up in Josh Timonen, well, what's a man to do? And I mean it would have to be dismissed as a mere blip on the man's faultless demeanor, too. It couldn't possibly be a more intrinsic part of his character, which the forum staff had long become exasperated by.

Well, there are two possible good outcomes I can think of that might come forth in due course. Josh may mend his ways, or Richard might just start seeing Josh properly, warts and all - and perhaps even act on that at some point. Perhaps he might even come to realise that Josh's web-development talent isn't in all truth quite as exceptional as he believed it to be.

It'll take baby-steps methinks. And if Richard happens to read this at some point, well, it may offend him slightly, and I'm not too bothered, because I happen to stand by what I've said as being accurate and descriptive, to the best of my knowledge - and I care more about the truth of the matter than Richard's psychological comfort. Unlike Josh Timonen I would never knowingly lie to him, wilfully mislead him or wilfully allow him to be misled…

And it feels quite cathartic to get that out.

[Ayaan]

New site is up and running. Meh. Not impressed. Reminds me of the comment section after a news article or blog entry - or a facebook news feed.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/archive/d ... ons/latest