First reaction by Richard Dawkins.

[Don't Panic]

Chauncey Gardner here, Fred Kite on another thread, both Peter Sellers characters; possibly his left and right socks.

i was going to call that one xeno but i thought cg was a valued member of this forum. but it was something in the style, the repetition, the smell.
is yours a hunch too or do you have evidence?

I'd say the hunch is a very good one indeed. Having been a mod/admin back at RD.net myself, you get a "nose" for puppetry like this. Anyway, the staff will investigate .. and act.

i actually deleted a post about it as i recalled one of the mods saying there was no puppetry but fredkite only joined this am but he seemed keen to bash the new peeps but keen to deflect criticism of the old members here. i didn't want to cause trouble. but something smelled.

No IP match, but that doesn't mean anything, proxy or dynamic IP and it doesn't always generate a hit.

A little more checking methinks.

[Pensioner]

you maybe completely right about everything...I don't know. What I do know, however, is that YOU DON'T KNOW.

What CG doesn't know is that he doesn't know that he doesn't know. I've seen his brand of sophistry countless times, now.

wow...

you know...I didn't like the wording richard used in his 'outrage' letter, but, the more I read from people like you the more I understand what he means when he talked about routing out some people.

I’m so pleased you posted that because if I had posted it I would have looked like a twatt.

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

My thoughts on the richarddawkins.net fiasco.

[Tortured_Genius]

My thoughts on the richarddawkins.net fiasco.

I just spent over 30 minutes typing a considered and thoughtful response to your comments - and then my browser went and eated it

So the short version:

Whilst if the dust could be allowed to settle and the actual events analysed and considerd in a fair and equitable manner would be great, it's not going to happen.

By monday morning the version of events that will prevail will be the one that has been "sold" the most effectively. If the former mods sit back now they WILL be held responsible for everything unless they scream long and loud and tell their side of the story.

Been there too many times myself (as no doubt have many of the people involved) to doubt it will go any other way. So whilst I don't disagree with your analysis of events, I'm afraid I disagree with your conclusion.

Sit down and have a cup of tea - and the accepted version will be that evil mods forced the closing the boards due to their intemperate behaviour. End of story.

They are convenient scapegoats for someone else screwing up. Been there, done that, had some bastard force me to wear the tee-shirt.

In that situation the very worst thing you can do is sit back and let events take their course.

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

I agree that you shouldn't just "sit back" but I also don't think that saying things like "Fuck Richard Dawkins" or "Josh is a prick" is going to help anything.

[Flora]

I agree that you shouldn't just "sit back" but I also don't think that saying things like "Fuck Richard Dawkins" or "Josh is a prick" is going to help anything.

Of course it's not going to help anything but those comments are a small minority, which have been used to justify the locking of the forum, the deletion of people's entire posting history and the vilification of the forum membership (of which you are one). Do you think the people who made significant contributions to RD's mission, the forum and the Foundation (as staff and members) should let a pack of lies and spin be promoted on the Internet without any response?

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

I agree that you shouldn't just "sit back" but I also don't think that saying things like "Fuck Richard Dawkins" or "Josh is a prick" is going to help anything.

Of course it's not going to help anything but those comments are a small minority, which have been used to justify the locking of the forum, the deletion of people's entire posting history and the vilification of the forum membership (of which you are one). Do you think the people who made significant contributions to RD's mission, the forum and the Foundation (as staff and members) should let a pack of lies and spin be promoted on the Internet without any response?

No, but they've said what they've had to. Give the other side time to sort this out. If a few weeks pass and this hasn't been fixed, then try again. The other side is only human and needs time to respond.

[Animavore]

Hey Miss I-just-saw-this-thread. I-really-only-joined-this forum-to-see-the-picture-that-I-did-that-was-reposted.-Richarddawkins.net-is-good-enough-for-me,-but-thanks-anyway!-^__^!

What are you doing here ?









Jus' messing.
I actually agree with you. Letters have been compiled by the mods and sent to the relative people and all they can do is wait for a response. If they don't get one soon then try again.
Its all you can do.

EDIT: Grammar.

[Ilovelucy]

I agree that you shouldn't just "sit back" but I also don't think that saying things like "Fuck Richard Dawkins" or "Josh is a prick" is going to help anything.

Of course it's not going to help anything but those comments are a small minority, which have been used to justify the locking of the forum, the deletion of people's entire posting history and the vilification of the forum membership (of which you are one). Do you think the people who made significant contributions to RD's mission, the forum and the Foundation (as staff and members) should let a pack of lies and spin be promoted on the Internet without any response?

It's a bit like a Rolls Royce driving through a puddle and soaking a pedestrian. As the pedestrian starts flicking the Vs and swearing, the guy in the back of the rolls exclaims "You see, such horrible, vulgar commoners..."

[210karman]

I agree that you shouldn't just "sit back" but I also don't think that saying things like "Fuck Richard Dawkins" or "Josh is a prick" is going to help anything.

Of course it's not going to help anything but those comments are a small minority, which have been used to justify the locking of the forum, the deletion of people's entire posting history and the vilification of the forum membership (of which you are one). Do you think the people who made significant contributions to RD's mission, the forum and the Foundation (as staff and members) should let a pack of lies and spin be promoted on the Internet without any response?

It's a bit like a Rolls Royce driving through a puddle and soaking a pedestrian. As the pedestrian starts flicking the Vs and swearing, the guy in the back of the rolls exclaims "You see, such horrible, vulgar commoners..."

Very nice analogy ILL. I think he seems to be detached from your average man in the street. I loved the God Delusion but found it quite annoying to listen to the audio book narrated by RD and his wife. A lot of supercilious accentuation I thought.

[riddlemethis]

I agree that you shouldn't just "sit back" but I also don't think that saying things like "Fuck Richard Dawkins" or "Josh is a prick" is going to help anything.

Of course it's not going to help anything but those comments are a small minority, which have been used to justify the locking of the forum, the deletion of people's entire posting history and the vilification of the forum membership (of which you are one). Do you think the people who made significant contributions to RD's mission, the forum and the Foundation (as staff and members) should let a pack of lies and spin be promoted on the Internet without any response?

It's a bit like a Rolls Royce driving through a puddle and soaking a pedestrian. As the pedestrian starts flicking the Vs and swearing, the guy in the back of the rolls exclaims "You see, such horrible, vulgar commoners..."

+1. Perfect analogy!

[riddlemethis]

I do think that some of the high-browers can't get their heads round the fact that the hick next door can be an atheist too. Just because you don't believe in gods doesn't necessarily mean you are smart, thoughtful, gentle, subtle, reasonable, polite or even have a flair for joined up speaking. Forums are not private members clubs, by invitation only.

That Richard Dawkins never thought anyone who would call someone else a cunt in anger (and with good reason) would join his forum shows him to be out of touch. Surely RDF wouldn't attract that kind of oik? Goodness me, they'll be letting in labourers next, and you know how grubby the hourly paid are.

Moreover, the fact that he thinks this is purely an interweb affliction shows him to be totally clueless about the common man; if Josh Timonandpumba had been in the pub on that day, someone would have laid him out... and not anonymously, either.

I'm LOL'ing at this MCJ b/c the 'c' word is hardly confined to the realms of the blue collar worker & should RD or anybody else for that matter try to imply that it is they are rather more mendacious than simply out of touch.

Additionally, I don't think that the people whose comments have caused such furor that it has made the bloody Times (completely out of context and attributed as insults directed at someone they were not, no less - but then thats modern journalism for ya!) have shown themselves to be hicks at all. Seriously, as the punchline to a well known joke goes. . .'you fuck one pig!'

[klr]

I do think that some of the high-browers can't get their heads round the fact that the hick next door can be an atheist too. Just because you don't believe in gods doesn't necessarily mean you are smart, thoughtful, gentle, subtle, reasonable, polite or even have a flair for joined up speaking. Forums are not private members clubs, by invitation only.

That Richard Dawkins never thought anyone who would call someone else a cunt in anger (and with good reason) would join his forum shows him to be out of touch. Surely RDF wouldn't attract that kind of oik? Goodness me, they'll be letting in labourers next, and you know how grubby the hourly paid are.

Moreover, the fact that he thinks this is purely an interweb affliction shows him to be totally clueless about the common man; if Josh Timonandpumba had been in the pub on that day, someone would have laid him out... and not anonymously, either.

I'm LOL'ing at this MCJ b/c the 'c' word is hardly confined to the realms of the blue collar worker & should RD or anybody else for that matter try to imply that it is they are rather more mendacious than simply out of touch.

Additionally, I don't think that the people whose comments have caused such furor that it has made the bloody Times (completely out of context and attributed as insults directed at someone they were not, no less - but then thats modern journalism for ya!) have shown themselves to be hicks at all. Seriously, as the punchline to a well known joke goes. . .'you fuck one pig!'

You know, I'd never heard of the term "mendacious/mendacity" until RD used it. I suppose he broadened our vocabulary if nothing else.

[eXcommunicate]

You know, I'd never heard of the term "mendacious/mendacity" until RD used it. I suppose he broadened our vocabulary if nothing else.

Same.

[klr]

I don't know if anyone else has picked up on this before. Access the "Outrage" notice direct from the index link, everything looks OK. But now go into a thread listing in any of the forum sections, and you see something odd:

This readout shows who created a thread - i.e., made the first post. We've already pointed out anomalies in the cases of those posters who were nuked. Here's a different anomaly. Richard Dawkins' user name is in red, which signifies admin status. But he's not an admin. Hold your mouse over his name, and you see why:

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/memberl ... rofile&u=2

"u=2" mean user #2, which is the forum admin account. That's standard for phpBB - it's the same here. And you see the exact same link if you highlight the "admin" name under the Forum Announcement below the "Outrage" announcement.

Richard Dawkins is user #53.

So this is good forensic evidence to back up what a number of witnesses have claimed, i.e. that the "Outrage" post was submitted under the admin account before being reassigned to Richard Dawkins. It would appear that it was not followed through properly from all angles, and/or that the software isn't quite bulletproof.

Not that this tells us anything new, as we already had a very good reason why this was done: RD couldn't post directly himself, as he was locked out like all other users. It just underlines the central issue, which is that Josh Timonen was given a message to post on behalf of RD which he had to know contained seriously false and misleading information.