First reaction by Richard Dawkins.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

For some reason, I like the fact that mendacious and mendacity sound like mendicant (a kind of priest or friar that takes a vow of poverty). I know they are based on different Latin roots, but I prefer to think that being "mendacious" comes from the fact that priests are mendacious (and, therefore, they are mendicants). It's funny...to me.

[Lozzer]

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.

For some reason, I like the fact that mendacious and mendacity sound like mendicant (a kind of priest or friar that takes a vow of poverty). I know they are based on different Latin roots, but I prefer to think that being "mendacious" comes from the fact that priests are mendacious (and, therefore, they are mendicants). It's funny...to me.

Mmmm autism

[Coito ergo sum]

Richard Dawkins in bitter web censorship row with fellow atheists
Professor Richard Dawkins is embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and “frivolous gossip”.

By Heidi Blake
Published: 9:25AM GMT 26 Feb 2010
Comments 54 | Comment on this article

Richard Dawkins Photo: GETTY
The prominent atheist faced a torrent of abuse from outraged fans after he announced that all further postings to the discussion forum on his website would be tightly moderated to ward off what he called “something rotten” in internet culture.
“Imagine seeing your face described by an anonymous poster as a ‘slack-jawed turd-in-the-mouth mug,” he wrote in a blog titled “Outrage” on RichardDawkins.net.
“Surely there has to be something wrong with people who can resort to such over-the-top language, overreacting so spectacularly to something so trivial.”
He said tighter moderation would improve the tenor of discussion on the website. “The forum is going to be more tightly controlled and will be under more central control. So it won’t be available for anyone who wants to sound off freely.”
Prof Dawkins had also been described as "a suppurating rat’s rectum inside a dead skunk", he said. Another user had expressed "a sudden urge to ram a fistful of nails" down his throat.
The cloak of anonymity under which many users contributed to discussions had allowed a culture of abuse and foul language to develop that would not be possible if they identified themselves, he said.
The discussion section is one of the internet’s busiest atheist forums, attracting 3,000 postings per day on subjects including science, religion and ethics.
But Prof Dawkins now faces a backlash from fans who are unwilling to be silenced.
“A lot of people have lost respect for Dawkins after this, although I do still support the work that he does,” Peter Harrison, a former moderator of the website, told The Times.
“Thousands of loyal, intelligent, rational forum members have been misrepresented as a bunch of foul-mouthed, vitriolic thugs by the man who so inspired them.”
Another former fan said: “It may sound ridiculous to those not involved with online communities, but I feel hurt and displaced. It was like coming home to find the locks have been changed. My respect for Richard’s work is still intact but my respect for him as a person is in tatters.”
Christian groups have seized on the row as evidence that the Dawkins community is not as free-thinking as it makes out.

Not sure if this made it into the threads yet... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... eists.html

[Bella Fortuna]

That picture just screams "I'M GONNA CRUSH YOU LITTLE FUCKERS!"

[Coito ergo sum]

LOL....maybe Dawkins went to Hogwarts, School of Witchcraft and Wizardry?



I wonder what Dawkins' reaction to being depicted having sex with Mr./Mrs. Garrison on South Park was?

[Heresiarch]

That picture just screams "I'M GONNA CRUSH YOU LITTLE FUCKERS!"

It is a really bad picture of him. He looks concussed and my mind keeps adding little birds circling around his head.

[Thinking Aloud]

I wonder what Dawkins' reaction to being depicted having sex with Mr./Mrs. Garrison on South Park was?

If I recall, he complained that the accent was appalling, and that next time they only had to ask.

[Tortured_Genius]

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.

For some reason, I like the fact that mendacious and mendacity sound like mendicant (a kind of priest or friar that takes a vow of poverty). I know they are based on different Latin roots, but I prefer to think that being "mendacious" comes from the fact that priests are mendacious (and, therefore, they are mendicants). It's funny...to me.

Mendacious used to be one of Seth's favourite words - so maybe............. nah, that's too ridiculous for words.........

[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.

For some reason, I like the fact that mendacious and mendacity sound like mendicant (a kind of priest or friar that takes a vow of poverty). I know they are based on different Latin roots, but I prefer to think that being "mendacious" comes from the fact that priests are mendacious (and, therefore, they are mendicants). It's funny...to me.

Mmmm autism

On this...

Emma Watson is definitely Photoshopped to look more like Dicky D.

[Bella Fortuna]

Purportedly the originals:

[sepermeru]

Mendacious used to be one of Seth's favourite words - so maybe............. nah, that's too ridiculous for words.........

I have to say, it's very surreal and somehow unnerving to have the real name Seth sometimes when reading these boards, especially if you only started participating after his time.

[MissingNo.]

LOL....maybe Dawkins went to Hogwarts, School of Witchcraft and Wizardry?

Great, thanks for corrupting my former schoolboy crush. I'll never be able to look at Emma Watson the same way again.

Richard Dawkins in bitter web censorship row with fellow atheists
Professor Richard Dawkins is embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and “frivolous gossip”.

By Heidi Blake
Published: 9:25AM GMT 26 Feb 2010
Comments 54 | Comment on this article

Richard Dawkins Photo: GETTY
The prominent atheist faced a torrent of abuse from outraged fans after he announced that all further postings to the discussion forum on his website would be tightly moderated to ward off what he called “something rotten” in internet culture.
“Imagine seeing your face described by an anonymous poster as a ‘slack-jawed turd-in-the-mouth mug,” he wrote in a blog titled “Outrage” on RichardDawkins.net.
“Surely there has to be something wrong with people who can resort to such over-the-top language, overreacting so spectacularly to something so trivial.”
He said tighter moderation would improve the tenor of discussion on the website. “The forum is going to be more tightly controlled and will be under more central control. So it won’t be available for anyone who wants to sound off freely.”
Prof Dawkins had also been described as "a suppurating rat’s rectum inside a dead skunk", he said. Another user had expressed "a sudden urge to ram a fistful of nails" down his throat.
The cloak of anonymity under which many users contributed to discussions had allowed a culture of abuse and foul language to develop that would not be possible if they identified themselves, he said.
The discussion section is one of the internet’s busiest atheist forums, attracting 3,000 postings per day on subjects including science, religion and ethics.
But Prof Dawkins now faces a backlash from fans who are unwilling to be silenced.
“A lot of people have lost respect for Dawkins after this, although I do still support the work that he does,” Peter Harrison, a former moderator of the website, told The Times.
“Thousands of loyal, intelligent, rational forum members have been misrepresented as a bunch of foul-mouthed, vitriolic thugs by the man who so inspired them.”
Another former fan said: “It may sound ridiculous to those not involved with online communities, but I feel hurt and displaced. It was like coming home to find the locks have been changed. My respect for Richard’s work is still intact but my respect for him as a person is in tatters.”
Christian groups have seized on the row as evidence that the Dawkins community is not as free-thinking as it makes out.

Not sure if this made it into the threads yet... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... eists.html

I've seen that said before elsewhere and I really can't wrap my mind around it. Dawkins is tied with the censorship of his own free-thinking community and instead of allowing themselves to be stifled in an act of subservient hero-worship, they're speaking out against him. This means they're not free-thinking individuals...how exactly?

Edit: made the passage in question bold for emphasis

[Mysturji]

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..."

QFT

[Thumpalumpacus]

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:

dawkins_admin.jpg

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.

What it really points to is a gatekeeper.

[lordpasternack]

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.

My bold.