New RDF website to be launched next week

[lordpasternack]

I have been blocked from a certain person's email inbox for this composition of words dispatched a couple of days ago:

Richardemail.JPG (37.75 KiB) Viewed 1100 times

I must confess that it was something of a climax in a series of emails that started off needling and gently satirical (in my view), and eventually evolved into such biting sardonicism in the course of my scab-picking over the situation. He'd clearly had more than enough, and I am regretful to have pushed things a bit too far pissed him off so much over this issue that I seem to have forfeit my correspondence with him. I have apologised to him (via another email), and stated, as is true, that I've been mildly manic over the past few weeks and as such lost sight a little of just how far I was pushing my luck and his patience, and approaching sheer obnoxiousness.

I also said that I didn't want to say any more to him with respect to my opinions on Josh and the new site layout, particularly amidst my ongoing cyclothymic turbulence - but felt quietly confident that others would in time happily echo those opinions in content if perhaps not in tone. And I'd like to thank you guys for being so cooperative with me on that count and reassure you that your cheques are in the mail.

I was genuinely, at least at the start, trying to make what I saw as pretty reasonable points and criticism. Well, what can I say - I suppose I really could have done so WITHOUT pissing him off in the process...

[colubridae]

Free RDF website for every willy party voter...

Just think! vote for us and you too can throw out anyone who posted on your site and supported your aims.

This is the response we received from one happy voter:-

[kiki5711]

I have been blocked from a certain person's email inbox for this composition of words dispatched a couple of days ago:

Richardemail.JPG

I must confess that it was something of a climax in a series of emails that started off needling and gently satirical (in my view), and eventually evolved into such biting sardonicism in the course of my scab-picking over the situation. He'd clearly had more than enough, and I am regretful to have pushed things a bit too far pissed him off so much over this issue that I seem to have forfeit my correspondence with him. I have apologised to him (via another email), and stated, as is true, that I've been mildly manic over the past few weeks and as such lost sight a little of just how far I was pushing my luck and his patience, and approaching sheer obnoxiousness.

I also said that I didn't want to say any more to him with respect to my opinions on Josh and the new site layout, particularly amidst my ongoing cyclothymic turbulence - but felt quietly confident that others would in time happily echo those opinions in content if perhaps not in tone. And I'd like to thank you guys for being so cooperative with me on that count and reassure you that your cheques are in the mail.

I was genuinely, at least at the start, trying to make what I saw as pretty reasonable points and criticism. Well, what can I say - I suppose I really could have done so WITHOUT pissing him off in the process...

Who is him LP? You talking about RD? Wow, that's something! I guess you really left an impression on him at that book signing when you almost fell all over him So, your name is Heather! Nice!

[JimC]

I can't even be arsed to go and look!

moi aussi...

[ficklefiend]

It just looks and feels so shite.

I did want to like it, I'm not a hater, even if it wasn't what it was before, I hoped it would have some new merits. I just really can't see any.

I always disliked the front page type of interaction because you can never get a good discussion going. People come, dump their tuppence worth opinion in a wall of text and then fuck off to the next thing. With no "your posts" or pressure from the users there is nothing to make people return to their thread. Consequently, they never see their opinion challenged and without that consequence in mind they don't need to put so much thought into their posts.

In the end everything about that interaction which might be useful and important is damaged. No one learns, no one sharpens their debate skills, no one changes their mind. Post dump, post dump, post dump. Unbearably pointless.

[Styrer]

I have been blocked from a certain person's email inbox for this composition of words dispatched a couple of days ago:

Richardemail.JPG

I must confess that it was something of a climax in a series of emails that started off needling and gently satirical (in my view), and eventually evolved into such biting sardonicism in the course of my scab-picking over the situation. He'd clearly had more than enough, and I am regretful to have pushed things a bit too far pissed him off so much over this issue that I seem to have forfeit my correspondence with him. I have apologised to him (via another email), and stated, as is true, that I've been mildly manic over the past few weeks and as such lost sight a little of just how far I was pushing my luck and his patience, and approaching sheer obnoxiousness.

I also said that I didn't want to say any more to him with respect to my opinions on Josh and the new site layout, particularly amidst my ongoing cyclothymic turbulence - but felt quietly confident that others would in time happily echo those opinions in content if perhaps not in tone. And I'd like to thank you guys for being so cooperative with me on that count and reassure you that your cheques are in the mail.

I was genuinely, at least at the start, trying to make what I saw as pretty reasonable points and criticism. Well, what can I say - I suppose I really could have done so WITHOUT pissing him off in the process...

Well needled, by the sounds of it.

Would you mind sharing RD's responses to your missives? Would make for fascinating reading.

Thanks.

Styrer

[lordpasternack]

That would be a bit of an abuse of trust, Styrer, I'm afraid. I may be strident and all, but there are certain principles I stick to even after I've dumped a sprinkle or two of unthinkably audacious bone-cutting sardonicism into the man's inbox and been subsequently blocked for it.

And yes, for all my folly, if there's anything I want to come out of this it's for me to have content of my main opinions expressed to be vindicated. I want to have been right. Not so that I can say: "Hate to say I told you so" - but to have my correctness to be at least a big consolation for any silliness that went along with it. I'd be utterly gutted if all that audacity and its consequence was genuinely a total utter misguided and mistaken waste of my time. And I would then send another more comprehensive sincere apology to Richard for having offended him and wasted his time for absolutely no possible good ends, because I happened to feel convicted about something. But if I do continue to feel that I am correct, then I suppose I can either laugh or cry at how far I pushed the situation and what's come of it in the end. I cried last night and this morning, and thought it had all brought on the predictable hard bubble-burst of a mildly manic spell - but now I seem to have rebounded a bit, and have found it in myself to laugh at it, in a wry sort of way. At myself. At the situation.

I mean, it's unthinkingly audacious and cutting, and I was mad to even think I could have got away with it, mad to think it would be appreciated and tolerated, mad to think I was giving a good impression of myself, and mad to have said it to someone I do deeply respect and admire and enjoyed corresponding with... But I also can't cut loose the niggling feeling that it's also very trenchant, and a well-crafted piece of sardonicism just in and of itself, and, well, true after all is said and done... so shoot me...

We'll see how things pan out over coming days and months...

[Styrer]

Thanks, LP. Understood.

No love for Josh, Chalkers and Dawkins from me on this whole despicable issue of the peremptory closing-down of the forum, and the new site really does hark back to the bad old sad old MS Publisher days; but the stated ambitions of the site seem to me to preserve what was great about the front pages (largely unmoderated comments from users) and even enhance this scope by allowing members to publish own content and opinion as discussion pieces, subject to moderated inclusion; and to grant a nod thereby to the Forum by way of allowing users to start off their own topics.

Take a look at the rules and the discussion area. Forget the layout - I agree it looks absolutely tenth rate - but the message is - you can say and do what you like, according to some pretty lax rules of conduct. Those moaning here must surely find the new site as offering far FEWER rules of conduct than were applicable on the incredibly censorious and intolerant forum which is now gone.

The contemptible deletion of vast amounts of wisdom, born of time and effort, from Forum members will never be forgiven. But some Forummers did operate to obscenely tight and censorious rules to which the FP was never subjected - at least until /Mike's last few months of shoddy intrusion, against the stated wishes of Dawkins. You'll recall Dawkins posted last year on the FP stating that it was his preference for NO moderation ever to transpire on the FP.

I think this new site stinks in its design and usability, but is superb in wanting to move away from the self-imposed censoriousness of the Forum and limit moderation/censoring of comments as much as possible.

If my very first, should I try it, 'fuck off' there be summarily deleted, then permit me a huge capitulation on the above!

Styrer

[Ayaan]

Just a side note, Styrer, the rules that the forum operated under where the rules that Prof. Dawkins wanted - one of the staff talked to him via email and phone about them to get his direct input. I don't know why things were different on the front page and the forum, but that was the way Prof. Dawkins wanted it.

Ayaan (aka sciwoman)

[Styrer]

Ayaan

Then I'm confused. Why his endorsing the rules for the Forum - which included tickings off right up to complete bannings - on the one hand, quite while on the other stating to the unmoderated FP members that the lack of moderation was exactly how he wished things to continue there?

Styrer

[Bella Fortuna]

I can't sign in or register...



Not that it's a big deal.

[virphen]

I can't sign in or register...



Not that it's a big deal.

Did you try the forgotten password link?

Chances are they've brought over just the username and e-mail, which aren't encrypted in a user database, and set a default password you can't possibly guess.

[lordpasternack]

Because, Styrer, Richard Dawkins is an absentee landlord who would at most times want absolutely nothing to do with the nitty-gritty of the running of his site and he hates thinking about rules and regulations so much that he'd rather the bad ones were kept than be involved in changing them. I am paraphrasing words that he uttered himself and adding my own interpretation while trying to maintain a certain amount of discretion.

His approach to "running" the site was a main catalyst in both schisms that have come out of RD.net - both involving incompetent young men who had grown used to the utter lack of oversight and accountability - not to mentioned easily abused trust. Richard must be aware of this, but he shows no sign of changing his modus operandi of only getting involved when everything blows up in his face, grovelling a bit and happily taking some responsibility, and then walking away and taking virtually no further action.

You'd think he'd at least delegate to someone mature and perceptive the particular task of watching the watchers or something. I had a few times considered jokingly asking him if he could redirect me to the person whose job it was to give a fuck about the nitty-gritty of running his site - rules and all that shit - so I wouldn't feel any further need to trouble himself. Yes, I'm sure that would have gone down like a lead balloon. But perhaps that's what /mike's job is supposed to be…

Management is not exactly Richard's forte - and I have to confess it does give me a small bit of frisson to call a man more than three times my age "green" - in any respect...

Over and above that, he can be quite fickle and sometimes moved far more by his heart than his head.

[Styrer]

Because, Styrer, Richard Dawkins is an absentee landlord who would at most times want absolutely nothing to do with the nitty-gritty of the running of his site and he hates thinking about rules and regulations so much that he'd rather the bad ones were kept than be involved in changing them. I am paraphrasing words that he uttered himself and adding my own interpretation while trying to maintain a certain amount of discretion.

His approach to "running" the site was a main catalyst in both schisms that have come out of RD.net - both involving incompetent young men who had grown used to the utter lack of oversight and accountability - not to mentioned easily abused trust. Richard must be aware of this, but he shows no sign of changing his modus operandi of only getting involved when everything blows up in his face, grovelling a bit and happily taking some responsibility, and then walking away and taking virtually no further action.

You'd think he'd at least delegate to someone mature and perceptive the particular task of watching the watchers or something. I had a few times considered jokingly asking him if he could redirect me to the person whose job it was to give a fuck about the nitty-gritty of running his site - rules and all that shit - so I wouldn't feel any further need to trouble himself. Yes, I'm sure that would have gone down like a lead balloon. But perhaps that's what /mike's job is supposed to be…

Management is not exactly Richard's forte - and I have to confess it does give me a small bit of frisson to call a man more than three times my age "green" - in any respect...

Over and above that, he can be quite fickle and sometimes moved far more by his heart than his head.

Thanks.

I agree he can seem quite the idiot, and I've taken my shots at the fella along with granting him my support over time. At once worldly and well-versed, he can revert to the crassest of positions, even on his own site. Ever the punctillious grammarian, he was recently very cruel to a member called Bonzai, whose spelling of 'Dennett' (and a few other things) was not perfect. That Bonzai's English is at the almost native level, hard-won because he's a Chinese national living in Canada, did not cross the Prof's mind. That the Chinese and the Japanese (my wife's nationality is the latter) have problems visualising English because of their daily adherence to kanji and hiragana, and so have problems with what we consider 'easy spelling', never crossed his mind. The point, though, seems to me that he DOES actually contribute to his own site, however crassly. I'm sure you would agree that his conversing with you via PM is hardly the action of an aloof arsehole.

Dawkins' problem is that he has entrusted his reputation and image to a couple of juvenile ignoramuses, in whom he trusts absolutely. Pull him up for that very curious take on what loyalty is all about, by all means. I would have thought, though, that anyone who has learned so much from him and still counts him as a remarkable man would try harder to rescue him from his two sycophantic sponge-merchants. I'd have thought you'd have more pity for a 70-year old man being blinded by the creative bullshit of one or two 20 odd year olds feathering their own nests at his expense.

That goes for a lot here, not just you.

Styrer

[Rum]

The site uses his name and he is ultimately responsible. I have not been bothered too much with all the drama, but as an old regular on the RDF site bottom line is he let a community down, whoever was delegated to responsibility of the day to day running. I don't blame people who work for me when a system doesn't work. Its my job to make sure it does.