RD.net to be re-revamped!

[Red Celt]

That's all good. Please let me know if you ever have any input regarding the actual substance of what I've argued.

I couldn't give a flying fuck about a single word you have to say on the issue. You're holding onto a grudge, stemming from a web forum that nobody gives a fuck about any more. And your reason for re-igniting your vendetta is the word of someone who told you what RD thinks of you. Seriously, there are times when I wish that people who call themselves skeptics would stop for a moment and apply that skepticism to their own belief-structure. Perhaps that woman was lying? Radical thought, I know, and one that might intrude on your go-nowhere campaign against someone whose absence would make the world a much poorer place.

But sod that. Much better for a nothingness to campaign against a somethingness.

[lordpasternack]

That's all good. Please let me know if you ever have any input regarding the actual substance of what I've argued.

I couldn't give a flying fuck about a single word you have to say on the issue. You're holding onto a grudge, stemming from a web forum that nobody gives a fuck about any more. And your reason for re-igniting your vendetta is the word of someone who told you what RD thinks of you. Seriously, there are times when I wish that people who call themselves skeptics would stop for a moment and apply that skepticism to their own belief-structure. Perhaps that woman was lying? Radical thought, I know, and one that might intrude on your go-nowhere campaign against someone whose absence would make the world a much poorer place.

But sod that. Much better for a nothingness to campaign against a somethingness.

That's all good. Please let me know if you ever have any input regarding the actual substance of what I've argued.

But - for what it's worth, you're wrong, on very many levels that wouldn't be worth my time explaining. You don't understand this situation. You don't know the details. You don't have the evidence, and you're not interested in seeing it. Don't preach to me about wishing people would be proper skeptics, when you are completely prejudging a complex situation you know sod all about - and presuming to tell me what my motives are.

[lordpasternack]

But since you do raise the issue - I did grant Richard the opportunity to deny having said what he is reported to have said about me - and he didn't take it...





And then I appreciated that he'd decided to tell the truth, for what it was worth - and I was totes cool about it all...

[Robert_S]

Wait wait wait... I can't keep up. Are we joining Skepchick in the Dawkins bashing, are we defending the old sod, are we worried he'll sue us for libel, are we fighting against the evil fundamentalist run accommodationist media? do we really care? Does anyone else?

I'm all confused now.

I think we're attacking Dawkins on his non-profit administration style while defending him from the fundamentalist Skepchicks.

I forgot where we stand on the South Park issue TBH.

[pErvinalia]

I think we need to nuke 'New Atheism' from orbit and start all over again..

[Robert_S]

Richard is cool with you posting those emails LP?

[lordpasternack]

Richard is cool with you posting those emails LP?

I wouldn't imagine so - but there are compelling reasons to post them.

But if you feel the need to make a judgement to the contrary, for the forum - then by all means...

[DaveDodo007]

Wait wait wait... I can't keep up. Are we joining Skepchick in the Dawkins bashing, are we defending the old sod, are we worried he'll sue us for libel, are we fighting against the evil fundamentalist run accommodationist media? do we really care? Does anyone else?

I'm all confused now.

Don't worry your pretty little head about it.

[DaveDodo007]

As far as substantive issues in the world today, including the nexus between religion and secular reactions to it, any RDF issues are so petty that I wonder why anyone is still concerned about it. It is a meaningless schoolyard squabble that is worth no one's time other than its sad little participants.

Get a grip, people, and move on...

So you are posting to say you don't give a fuck, nice.

When you are the boss of me, let me know as I command a substantial salary.

[DaveDodo007]

Wait wait wait... I can't keep up. Are we joining Skepchick in the Dawkins bashing, are we defending the old sod, are we worried he'll sue us for libel, are we fighting against the evil fundamentalist run accommodationist media? do we really care? Does anyone else?

I'm all confused now.

I think we're attacking Dawkins on his non-profit administration style while defending him from the fundamentalist Skepchicks.

I forgot where we stand on the South Park issue TBH.

The otters?

[Robert_S]

Richard is cool with you posting those emails LP?

I wouldn't imagine so - but there are compelling reasons to post them.

But if you feel the need to make a judgement to the contrary, for the forum - then by all means...

If it looks like the forum would be threatened, then I think we would. Other than that, use your free speech however you think is best.

[hadespussercats]

Well have any of the mods decided whether to move this to a less open part of the forum, I for one I'm coming to this discussion totally blind and I bet I'm not the only one. Until a lot of these charges have at least been substantiated this forum is UK based our libel laws suck big time. Calilasseia has pointed out how the myth based community would jump at this and used it with gusto, we have all seem the depths they would sink to even if it isn't true. We all know the media isn't atheist friendly to say the least.

Edit: more/move.

As for this mod, I'll say it here-- I see no reason to move this discussion to a more private part of the forum.

Who would we be protecting by doing so? LP? Dawkins? Have either of them done anything they should be protected for?

So far as I can see, the main person who'd have good reason for making these posts private is LP, since she's the one who's been posting potentially libellous claims, and unauthorized personal correspondence and the like. But she clearly wants those posts public.

I'm not her babysitter. And this forum is just a posting place, not a political organization. In fact, I feel like moving her posts and any other "tactical" talks to a private part of the forum at this point could be read as a statement of complicity by the staff with what's being said. I don't want any part of that.

[Hermit]

Please let me know if you ever have any input regarding the actual substance of what I've argued.

I couldn't give a flying fuck about a single word you have to say on the issue. You're holding onto a grudge, stemming from a web forum that nobody gives a fuck about any more. And your reason for re-igniting your vendetta is the word of someone who told you what RD thinks of you. Seriously, there are times when I wish that people who call themselves skeptics would stop for a moment and apply that skepticism to their own belief-structure. Perhaps that woman was lying? Radical thought, I know, and one that might intrude on your go-nowhere campaign against someone whose absence would make the world a much poorer place.

Input regarding the actual substance of what you've argued? Not gonna happen.

[Hermit]

I see no reason to move this discussion to a more private part of the forum.

Who would we be protecting by doing so? LP? Dawkins? Have either of them done anything they should be protected for?

So far as I can see, the main person who'd have good reason for making these posts private is LP, since she's the one who's been posting potentially libellous claims, and unauthorized personal correspondence and the like. But she clearly wants those posts public.

I'm not her babysitter. And this forum is just a posting place, not a political organization. In fact, I feel like moving her posts and any other "tactical" talks to a private part of the forum at this point could be read as a statement of complicity by the staff with what's being said. I don't want any part of that.

Good points. Additionally, even the bot-free and guest-free sections are essentially public.

[Red Celt]

Please let me know if you ever have any input regarding the actual substance of what I've argued.

I couldn't give a flying fuck about a single word you have to say on the issue. You're holding onto a grudge, stemming from a web forum that nobody gives a fuck about any more. And your reason for re-igniting your vendetta is the word of someone who told you what RD thinks of you. Seriously, there are times when I wish that people who call themselves skeptics would stop for a moment and apply that skepticism to their own belief-structure. Perhaps that woman was lying? Radical thought, I know, and one that might intrude on your go-nowhere campaign against someone whose absence would make the world a much poorer place.

Input regarding the actual substance of what you've argued? Not gonna happen.

Oh, let me guess, Hermit has some sort of long-standing relationship with LP?

Did I win a goldfish?

Would be good if my question could be answered, btw. The woman who claims to have had a sexual relationship with RD and then stirred the shit with LP. We know she is honest... because?

All I see is the academia equivalent of WAGs and WAG-wannabes having a bitch-fest over someone who didn't want to sleep with them. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned?