First reaction by Richard Dawkins.

[klr]

No, what you're a cheerleader for, is the viewpoint "OK, so it may look like a duck, walk like a duck, swim like a duck and quack like a duck, but all you people saying it is a duck before we have the DNA results back, are just jumping to unsupported conclusions".

Our preliminary analysis yields inconclusive results. Approximately 50% of the DNA is clearly of family Anatidae, while the remainder appears to be of family Crocodylidae .

[Ilovelucy]

Pleas guys, don't feed RDF's most distinguished sock puppeteer. Well, after atheistoclast.

+ 1

Does Mr Gardner here have some sockpuppetry gripe with RDF?

Also known by the name Gusg and a few others. He's having a great time leading you all up the garden path.

[klr]

Pleas guys, don't feed RDF's most distinguished sock puppeteer. Well, after atheistoclast.

+ 1

Does Mr Gardner here have some sockpuppetry gripe with RDF?

Also known by the name Gusg and a few others. He's having a great time leading you all up the garden path.

Ah yes, I remember now. After my time, but I remember. Note well and duly taken.

[Chauncey Gardner]

You're right that I don't know what they are thinking. That's how I don't know whether Richard is aware of the lies etc. But we don't need to be supernatural to know that we are being accused of things that didn't happen. I can't say what Richard thinks as a fact. But it is a fact that they have lied about reason for closing the forum, they have lied for months to the mods and they have even lied to Richard himself.

has it occurred to you that there might have been a very valid reason that josh and the RDF team had to suddenly back-track on the promise to keep the forum alive for 30 days and pull the plug?

Or are you so entrenched in your opinion that the RDF site administrator who has run and helped build one of the biggest atheist sites on the planet, suddenly went postal for petulant reasons and told Richard a few porky pies to cover his tracks?

When the dust settles and the red mist clears...I'm guessing you might be just a teeny weeny bit embarrassed by your recent blog posts about the RDF closure. I've read lot of message board comments and blog posts...even twitter posts...the majority of which refer back to your blog as "proof" everyone has been royally shafted. There's even people posting bullet point summaries of your points on this forum as if it is FACT.

If I was a betting man, my money would be on a rational and valid reason for Josh's actions this week (suddenly pulling the plug).

Well, your point seems to be that, on the grand scale of things, this is essentially a non-event, since it happened in cyber-space. To some extent that is true, and I recognize the contrarian in you, especially since I am one myself.

All I can suggest is that you try a different context. I would suggest focusing instead on analyzing what might have led the forum administration at RDF to change the format of the site vis-a-vis the forum.

I am neither a fanboy nor a detractor of Dawkins and I don't think a lot of vitriol should be directed his way following on the posted comments defending Timonen (and or Chalkley). What hurts most, from my perspective, is not the damage to the forum or its community, but what looms as an attempt to cover-up the damage to good will that was created by the manner in which the transition was handled, particularly in the last days as the situation snowballed.

Going back a few weeks or months, we see decisions were made to modify the forum format. The potential reasons for those range from technical incapacity to support a fully functional forum given the volume of membership and text to suspicions that the tone of some discussions in the forum was damaging the interests of the Foundation as it pursued whichever goals it chooses.

What appears to be a fact, however, at this point is that admin logs were wiped after the situation spun out of control. If Dawkins or any other representative of the RDF ever addresses this, it will only be a distraction from inquiring into the real reasons the decision was made to overhaul the content of the website in a big way.

If minimising damage to the reputation and mission of the Foundation figure into it at all, even going back weeks or months, I'd say a certain measure of the blame also must be placed upon the website administration. Scolding former forum members for reacting badly to something they may only be dimly aware of is what I like to call a "straw herring".

I see your point and I like the term "straw herring", but, I think you're misunderstanding my point of view....I'm not disputing the speculations maybe true....I'm disputing the back-stabbing vitriol being directed at richard and josh based on speculation.

there's nothing wrong with speculation, but, there's obviously a red mist of anger fuelling the comments/blog posts and some are obviously knitting together speculations to draw conclusions that satisfy their anger.

[Mr.Samsa]

Pleas guys, don't feed RDF's most distinguished sock puppeteer. Well, after atheistoclast.

+ 1

Does Mr Gardner here have some sockpuppetry gripe with RDF?

Also known by the name Gusg and a few others. He's having a great time leading you all up the garden path.

Bah.

I should've guessed the moment he started making posts made on bullshit assertions, contradicting himself, and generally just being incorrect about everything.

Cheers for the info.

[Chauncey Gardner]

...Incidentally, Fallible, I do think it's very funny that you (and others on here) are trying to ridicule me because I refuse to become a cheerleader for the judgementalists...

No, what you're a cheerleader for, is the viewpoint "OK, so it may look like a duck, walk like a duck, swim like a duck and quack like a duck, but all you people saying it is a duck before we have the DNA results back, are just jumping to unsupported conclusions".

LOL

I beg to differ Horwood. It's more like "peter harrison said it's like a duck, someone else said it sounds like a duck, someone else said peter harrison said it swims like a duck...so it must be a duck".

I can explain that for you Horwood. But I can't understand it for you.

Except people aren't just taking Peter Harrison's word for it, all of the ex-RDF staff who were online at the time confirm the same story.

Peter Harrison was merely the first to get a detailed account of events up on his blog, that's the only reason everyone is linking to him.

I hope it's not too embarrssing for you if I point out that Christians often point to the writings of st peter as a detailed account of events.....but that doesn't make it true, Horwood.

besides, I asked Peter Harrison directly about his blog posts (on here)...and he admits he maybe wrong and he accepts he doesn't have all the facts. I would venture he will also feel embarrassed soon...after the red mist fades away and the dust settles.

[Chauncey Gardner]

Pleas guys, don't feed RDF's most distinguished sock puppeteer. Well, after atheistoclast.

+ 1

Does Mr Gardner here have some sockpuppetry gripe with RDF?

Also known by the name Gusg and a few others. He's having a great time leading you all up the garden path.

Bah.

I should've guessed the moment he started making posts made on bullshit assertions, contradicting himself, and generally just being incorrect about everything.

Cheers for the info.

brilliant....now the mob turns on me!!!!

[Mr.Samsa]

You're chewy. I like you.

[Surendra Darathy]

I think you're misunderstanding my point of view....I'm not disputing the speculations maybe true....I'm disputing the back-stabbing vitriol being directed at richard and josh based on speculation.

Yeah, well, I can see that your contribution here is tootling a one-note symphony about "speculation", rather than presenting a "point of view", which is something you lack in any respect. All you present is a condemnation of "speculation" on general principles, presumably because vitriol is corrosive of something, namely your delicate sensibilities. It isn't speculation, my man. Facts have been presented, and you won't address them because they get in the way of your one-note symphony. It's so easy to name something vitriol, CG, and then condemn it. Try something more difficult. Done with you, therefore, pal.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...Incidentally, Fallible, I do think it's very funny that you (and others on here) are trying to ridicule me because I refuse to become a cheerleader for the judgementalists...

No, what you're a cheerleader for, is the viewpoint "OK, so it may look like a duck, walk like a duck, swim like a duck and quack like a duck, but all you people saying it is a duck before we have the DNA results back, are just jumping to unsupported conclusions".

LOL

I beg to differ Horwood. It's more like "peter harrison said it's like a duck, someone else said it sounds like a duck, someone else said peter harrison said it swims like a duck...so it must be a duck".

I can explain that for you Horwood. But I can't understand it for you.

Except people aren't just taking Peter Harrison's word for it, all of the ex-RDF staff who were online at the time confirm the same story.

Peter Harrison was merely the first to get a detailed account of events up on his blog, that's the only reason everyone is linking to him.

I hope it's not too embarrssing for you if I point out that Christians often point to the writings of st peter as a detailed account of events.....but that doesn't make it true, Horwood...

What part of..

...all of the ex-RDF staff who were online at the time confirm the same story...

..is unclear to you?

The writers of the gospels contradict each other, and can't be show to have been there at the time. Witnesses to Josh's actions don't contradict each other, and can be show to have been there at the time.

Your analogy fails.

[ozewiezeloose]

You're chewy. I like you.

I prefer chewy and sweet.

[hackenslash]

Speaking of chewy, I see Cali's done a right number on some numbnuts at Pharyngula.

[klr]

Speaking of chewy, I see Cali's done a right number on some numbnuts at Pharyngula.

So we noticed. A joy to behold.

[Surendra Darathy]

...
YOU DON'T KNOW WHY they backtracked on their promise to keep the forum alive and pulled the plug. YOU ARE SPECULATING.

And therein lies a massive problem. They won't tell us. Standard procedure is that you tell people why you are backtracking on a clear promise. Don't you get angry with politicians when the do that, or even when they do give a reason that you don't like/don't agree with/don't believe?

This is the problem, as I see it, and apparently it goes back a long way, since the change to the forum was planned for some time. Those administrating the forum and its changes do not owe the membership full disclosure, but they can't have their cake and eat it as well, in the good-will department.

What they lost is the good will of some of the membership. I'm convinced that RDF will not be hurting for membership, good will, or content in the future.

If broadcasting expressively some of the causes for good-will having been lost is "vitriol", well, so be it. I am not a fanboy anywhere, and I never believed that "Corporate Atheism" was the solution to the silliness of religion. Personally, I am immune to vitriol, and people with an aversion to it can always go stick their heads in the sand.

[ozewiezeloose]

Speaking of chewy, I see Cali's done a right number on some numbnuts at Pharyngula.

Ah! Good to see Cali hasn't lost any of his marbles!