RD.net to be re-revamped!

[kiki5711]

What are you trying to accomplish by keep on revamping about RD.net? Do you want to take over and make it better? You want Richard to hire you as his personal secretary so you could tell him what is the best way to run his foundation?

I don't get it?

If it is not succeeding, then the path will take it's course and maybe turn into something else. Maybe later on it will pick up speed for some reason or another. Maybe not. Is this something Richard is loosing sleep over? Did he tell you what he wants?

[Jason]

In fiscal 2009, for instance, donations received amounted to £317,926 ... The figures for fiscal 2010 are worse than that. Not only has the amount of donations received plummeted to £66,301.

I'll allow myself a moment of schadenfreude and wonder "what could've caused such a drastic downturn?"

[lordpasternack]

What are you trying to accomplish by keep on revamping about RD.net? Do you want to take over and make it better? You want Richard to hire you as his personal secretary so you could tell him what is the best way to run his foundation?

I don't get it?

If it is not succeeding, then the path will take it's course and maybe turn into something else. Maybe later on it will pick up speed for some reason or another. Maybe not. Is this something Richard is loosing sleep over? Did he tell you what he wants?

Actually, that trivialises it a bit. It's far worse than someone being wrong on the internet - it's people royally screwing a lot of things up, and then failing to be honest and clear the mess up, properly - while maintaining a certain air of false credibility. Worse than that, where they do open their mouths or take action, they invariably make a bit of a mess of it. That galls me some amount purely in principle, before I factor my quixotic offense at an organisation purportedly devoted to reason and evidence-based understanding running their show like that, and then factor my previous attachment to that organisation, and my erstwhile crush on Richard.

I really want them to make things better, but have so little faith that they actually will. I still don't think Richard appreciates how utterly dire it is that he still can't furnish an explanation of what RDFRS has been doing in line with it's mission. He doesn't realise that a vague: "We'll make things better" doesn't quite cut it. It's like Richard dealing with a student who has been failing in all areas and shows no signs of latent ability - and when reprimanded, the student just smiles weakly and assures him that they promise to do better. It's not good enough - and I can't see it getting good enough with that attitude, and the same nepotistically and self-interestedly hand-selected people on board. It's a real clusterfuck. As Flora/Jan said, it really is just exasperating to see balls-up after balls-up…

In short - a lot of it galls me in principle, and I may have just written them off completely, but for the other emotional things that have kept me picking the scab.

[borealis]

LP

has Richard ever given you any signal verbally or otherwise to encourage you to a personal/intimate relatonship with him?

He has complimented me a few times in the past, sincerely. Some encouraging words, which one could always read optimistically between the lines over - but certainly nothing I could sell to the tabloids.

You have to stalk him and wait until he approaches an elevator alone. Then sneak to the same elevator and ask if he wants to go for "a coffee" to your place He cannot escape! If he says 'no', you know what stop-button in elevators is for.

[Robert_S]

It's not "just the internet", even if one feels the internet is "just the internet", which I don't.

It's people's real time and real money. It's the more general public image atheism, secularism and (to an extent) science as well; not to mention the potential for networking and movement-building. Richard took up the flag willingly, and that comes with responsibilities.

[Ronja]

Well put, Robert.

[Gallstones]

Yes, well said Robert.

[hadespussercats]

borealis,

[lordpasternack]

I don't think the mods on RDnet now are incompetent - I suspect they are just trying to "the right thing" and don't have any malicious intent. Is it fair to describe them as not competent? I know one of them and he's a lovely guy who has RDFRS best interests at heart.

Their competence is distinct from whether their heart is in the right place. I've called them "well-meaning incompetents" a few times. The hat fits. There has been many a time in this world where someone has fucked things up with the best of intentions, because they simply weren't competent for the task at hand. Someone who tries and repeatedly fails to do "the right thing", is incompetent. That's how it is.

Andrew Chalkley has admitted to his own incompetence when left to deal with forumgate back in early 2010. That's a noble thing to do. Incompetence itself isn't a sin, and isn't an insult - it's all the offences that one commits in denial of one's ignorance or incompetence that are the problem. 

Actually, another interesting thing that came out in what Andrew Chalkley has been telling me, is that PAULA KIRBY had requested him to completely delete a member (or members) from the forum at the time of forumgate - and when asked for her rationale, Paula simply said: "This is war."

Presuming that Andrew isn't telling me lies on that account - I find that rather contemptible. It's also of course a matter of fact that Paula is moderating the board just now - but she doesn't like people to know about it. She likes to hide behind anonymity. All in spite of the fact that she shed her pseudonym 'Northern Bright' all those moons ago, in a bold movement to show how nobly open and transparent and non-anonymous she is.

I really don't think she's a bad woman, or even that her intent is completely malicious - but there's definitely a little bit of double-dealing going on there, which she deserves to be called out on. 

And I also hope she sees that, for all my stridency, I have a certain integrity - an integrity that I wouldn't forfeit for love, money, spite, status or even Richard Dawkins. I maintain my pseudonym for my own discretionary reasons - but I'm still an open book. What you see is what you get. If I'm fucking up, it'll be out in the open, and I'll be upfront and honest about it. No messing about. No bullshit.

I don't know what you've posted that was deleted but perhaps they thought you were just intent on trolling/insulting RD rather than making a contribution.

You must have missed me saying - but they reinstated my posts (made through my sockpuppet 'T4') - so they couldn't have been that offensive at bottom. And as to what they think my intent is or was - they could always ask. They could always communicate - but they never do. They've never so much as condescended to tell me why my original account was banned. They're simply incompetent. Obnoxiously incompetent.

[Incognita]

RD has done wonders for science and secularism through his writing and talking. He is a huge asset in that respect. But he can put his forum where the sun doesn't shine as far as I am concerned. I can't imagine wanting to go back there.

[JimC]

RD has done wonders for science and secularism through his writing and talking. He is a huge asset in that respect. But he can put his forum where the sun doesn't shine as far as I am concerned. I can't imagine wanting to go back there.

[Ronja]

RD has done wonders for science and secularism through his writing and talking. He is a huge asset in that respect. But he can put his forum where the sun doesn't shine as far as I am concerned. I can't imagine wanting to go back there.

I went back there today to search for the context of something I posted (manually - the search function is as dead as it was in February 2010). It was a sad experience. I still don't know where over half the people who used to post in Parenting & Education went.

[Svartalf]

RD has done wonders for science and secularism through his writing and talking. He is a huge asset in that respect. But he can put his forum where the sun doesn't shine as far as I am concerned. I can't imagine wanting to go back there.

That reminds me of an old Japanese story that RD might do well to heed.

A Daimyo once wrote a letter in praise of one of his samurai. But the letter was written in the past tense, so the samurai committed seppuku so facts would match his Lord's words.

[kiki5711]

"We'll make things better" doesn't quite cut it. It's like Richard dealing with a student who has been failing in all areas and shows no signs of latent ability - and when reprimanded, the student just smiles weakly and assures him that they promise to do better. It's not good enough

Well,, what is Richard suppose to do? Start pulling his hair out about it? In your example above, it's the student's responsibility to get his/her grades up not the teachers. In the case of "who's going to make RD.net" better," maybe nobody. And maybe it will fade away and something new will come out of it with different inspirations.

We can't always get things done on our time table as we demand it especially if we demand our vision to be performed by "other" people. It just AINT gonna happen that way.

[Ronja]

kiki, when this current round started 1st November (see this post and onwards http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1027176) it was just a question: "What does your organization do?"

IMO, if and organization has received the official charity label and around half a million pounds sterling (and likely more over the years) it is very little to ask "BTW, what did you do with the money?" - and it is definitely suspicious if an answer is not speedily forthcoming. Regardless of who asks and how they phrase the question (and IMO LP was quite civilized in the beginning: mildly ironic, but civilized).

Would you trust a 501(c)(3) charity that takes four to six weeks to start reacting to that type of questions at all, and that does not answer some people's questions but does acknowledge comments/questions by others?