Times Online- Richard Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans

[klr]

No... TA did the first one.

I think we need a gallery thread ...

[goodboyCerberus]

First LOLJosh, perchance?

How is this helping?

[Calilasseia]

First LOLJosh, perchance?

How is this helping?

Venting of steam allied to humour. It's something that happens a lot around here. Just ask anyone who's been a member for more than 6 months.

[Mazille]

Aww Mazille

No need to worry, mate. I'm over it. Water under the troll's home, as they say, or something...
What I care about now is not to have the name of my fellow ex-mods and ex-members besmirched just because one dickhead tries to safe his own sorry ass. (Well, that and finding a new place to hang out with my band of multi-national friends.)

[GenesForLife]

First LOLJosh, perchance?

How is this helping?

Venting in a non-harmful way can reduce tension, hostility and restore calmness, perhaps?

[goodboyCerberus]

Just ask anyone who's been a member for more than 6 months.

I see what you did there.

[Calilasseia]

Just ask anyone who's been a member for more than 6 months.

I see what you did there.

O RLY? Care to inform me, since you seem to know what I'm thinking better than I do myself?

[klr]

First LOLJosh, perchance?

How is this helping?

Venting of steam allied to humour. It's something that happens a lot around here. Just ask anyone who's been a member for more than 6 months.

RD himself (and Josh) have had no problem with parodies being used against others when it suited them. Nor should they. If the parody makes a valid point, and the underlying issue is real, then I see no issue.

[goodboyCerberus]

Just ask anyone who's been a member for more than 6 months.

I see what you did there.

O RLY? Care to inform me, since you seem to know what I'm thinking better than I do myself?

Old timers/mods vs noobs bullshit, perhaps? Eh, maybe I'm just imagining things then.

Anyway, http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=9181

[Ironclad]

Oh lordy, will this roll and roll now we've hit the Times?!

I don't quite understand just how Josh, or another could have dealt with the search and database problems more effectively, I'm sure it cannot be that big a deal to fix/repair.
But why oh why did they not simply open a new forum corner, one that would be groomed and fully pre-moderated? Some of the work by hard-working members** could have copy-migrated, lest they be buried. And busy peoples work need not have been binned. Or split the Board Index and ensure that Professor Dawkins kept a clean, spam-free zone for original or important science and reason, that which was his desire?
I just can't see past the smoking ruins. 85,000 fans most of whom may not participate anymore.

It is, surely, an easy fix. We can all end up smelling of flowers here, even now.
Come on Professor, it is only the internet, we won't die, but you can have your cake AND eat it.
I'll buy you a pint!


**extensive list, not prepared to miss anyone out.

(prob want posting elsewhere, but the Times link got made me sad again)

[Mysturji]

Someone please send me a link to that photo of Josh and Richard (the un-captioned version). I can't find it.
I feel a lol-celeb coming on.

Courtesy of the good people at Wikpedia:

BRB

[Hollis]

I really can't believe that the closing of an internet forum is hitting the news. Times are changing. I'm also unable to believe the horrific abuse that is being directed to Richard Dawkins here. This is the ''dark side'' of Internet fan bases: sure, they can shower praise on you, but they can turn in an instant, with the least provocation. I'm really saddened that apparent fans of Dawkins have directed so many insults towards him.

[sepermeru]

To: online.editor@timesonline.co.uk

Dear Sir or Madam:

I'm writing to call your attention to a factually incorrect story currently being reported on Times Online.

The story appears here: http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/ ... -fans.html and in this blog: http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/. These stories seem to make the claim that quotes presented by Richard Dawkins were published on his website forum. This is incorrect -- the quotes presented never appeared on Richard Dawkins' website in any form.

These factual errors are spreading quickly as a result of the Times reporting, which seems to have taken a post on the internet claiming to be from Richard Dawkins as accurate without further investigation*. Currently, there is some speculation that Dawkins was possibly himself misled by a staffer into believing those quotes appeared on his website, but there is ample evidence for the fact that they did not.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

[realname]

Should send?

*Yeah I know it was him, but did they even check?

[Mazille]

I really can't believe that the closing of an internet forum is hitting the news. Times are changing. I'm also unable to believe the horrific abuse that is being directed to Richard Dawkins here. This is the ''dark side'' of Internet fan bases: sure, they can shower praise on you, but they can turn in an instant, with the least provocation. I'm really saddened that apparent fans of Dawkins have directed so many insults towards him.

Come again?

(Not to defend those who threw actual abuse at JOSH (NOT Dawkins). Those were their actions, and although they were certainly rude and uncalled for, I am not going to condemn them eiter.)

[Matt H]

I really can't believe that the closing of an internet forum is hitting the news. Times are changing. I'm also unable to believe the horrific abuse that is being directed to Richard Dawkins here. This is the ''dark side'' of Internet fan bases: sure, they can shower praise on you, but they can turn in an instant, with the least provocation. I'm really saddened that apparent fans of Dawkins have directed so many insults towards him.

You obviously don't know what has happened.

Before condemning people over something you don't understand, please take the time to read what the former staff have to say. http://www.realityismyreligion.com is a good place to start.

As for 'horrific abuse', what a joke. Richard is the one who started this; before this happened, many of us thought Josh had left Richard in the dark, but Richard's 'Outrage' post was smug and colossally ignorant. He failed to address the main points, which you would know about had you read Peter's blog.