First reaction by Richard Dawkins.

[z8000783]

Urgh, sword-swallowing. Sounds too potentially slicey-slicey to me.

It is usually safe enough so long as you don't use a scimitar.

John

[Coito ergo sum]

Urgh, sword-swallowing. Sounds too potentially slicey-slicey to me.

I do tend to prefer softer, more blunt instruments...

Mine is cream filled.

[lordpasternack]

Urgh, sword-swallowing. Sounds too potentially slicey-slicey to me.

I do tend to prefer softer, more blunt instruments...

Mine is cream filled.

Perhaps one day I could always borrow it for a short while...

[Coito ergo sum]

Urgh, sword-swallowing. Sounds too potentially slicey-slicey to me.

I do tend to prefer softer, more blunt instruments...

Mine is cream filled.

Perhaps one day I could always borrow it for a short while...

By all means! I am a very giving person. I think you'd find it just the right combination of a firm and smooth texture, with a cream filling that I make myself. Feel free to come for seconds!

[Luis Dias]

Hey you get a room, will ya? ffs!

[Fact-Man]

Kevin - if you read Richard's apology he makes clear what I hypothesised - that he himself read the very comments here, and in writing out the 'Outrage' post, wasn't aware of creating any ambiguity or implication that the comments came from RD.net. He addresses this quite amply in his apology, to my mind.

Am I the only one who found that a bit strange? It's quite clear that anyone who reads Outrage! without knowing those quotes came from here would assume they came from RD.net from the context. He quotes them right after writing about how awful and vitriolic all the responses to closing down the forum were with no mention of any alternative forum in the entire post.

Indeed and his apology doesn't really cover this interpretation. When I read the "outrage" post it seemed rather clear to me that he was referring to the RDNet forum regarding the source of the "foul quotes," and later, when I read his apology, that impression was not changed.

So no, you are not alone in this. I think a lot of members took it the same way.

[fuck you & fuck your god]

Kevin - if you read Richard's apology he makes clear what I hypothesised - that he himself read the very comments here, and in writing out the 'Outrage' post, wasn't aware of creating any ambiguity or implication that the comments came from RD.net. He addresses this quite amply in his apology, to my mind.

Am I the only one who found that a bit strange? It's quite clear that anyone who reads Outrage! without knowing those quotes came from here would assume they came from RD.net from the context. He quotes them right after writing about how awful and vitriolic all the responses to closing down the forum were with no mention of any alternative forum in the entire post.

Indeed and his apology doesn't really cover this interpretation. When I read the "outrage" post it seemed rather clear to me that he was referring to the RDNet forum regarding the source of the "foul quotes," and later, when I read his apology, that impression was not changed.

So no, you are not alone in this. I think a lot of members took it the same way.

It seems blatantly obvious he implies the comments were on RDnet:

Outrage:
"You will notice that the forum has in fact been closed to comments (not taken down) sooner than the 30 days alluded to in the letter. This is purely and simply because of the over-the-top hostility of the comments that were immediately sent in."

[lordpasternack]

Kevin - if you read Richard's apology he makes clear what I hypothesised - that he himself read the very comments here, and in writing out the 'Outrage' post, wasn't aware of creating any ambiguity or implication that the comments came from RD.net. He addresses this quite amply in his apology, to my mind.

Am I the only one who found that a bit strange? It's quite clear that anyone who reads Outrage! without knowing those quotes came from here would assume they came from RD.net from the context. He quotes them right after writing about how awful and vitriolic all the responses to closing down the forum were with no mention of any alternative forum in the entire post.

Indeed and his apology doesn't really cover this interpretation. When I read the "outrage" post it seemed rather clear to me that he was referring to the RDNet forum regarding the source of the "foul quotes," and later, when I read his apology, that impression was not changed.

So no, you are not alone in this. I think a lot of members took it the same way.

It seems blatantly obvious he implies the comments were on RDnet:

Outrage:
"You will notice that the forum has in fact been closed to comments (not taken down) sooner than the 30 days alluded to in the letter. This is purely and simply because of the over-the-top hostility of the comments that were immediately sent in."

Sigh.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleCommen ... ge2#464903

It seems that Richard was wrongly informed that the initial thread on RD.net was of a similar character to that which he later found on Rationalia - where Richard got the quotes from in his 'Outrage' piece.

It seems that when Richard wrote the 'Outrage' piece, he didn't make sure to avoid the ambiguity of making it seem like those quotes were from the original RD.net thread.

The original RD.net thread was deleted, so Richard never at the time of writing had any evidence to go on that it was as vitriolic as he wished to claim it was.

But a good user has a cache of a sizeable portion of this original thread (from page 7 - 20) demonstrating that it quite simply wasn't: http://thinking-aloud.co.uk/temp/rdf.html

The fist-shaking ire from some came after various misdemeanors and acts calculated to piss off, were committed by either Josh, Andrew, or both in collusion.

My emphasis.

I really don't see why this is so hard to get one's head around. Admittedly, it's bound to be easier for me - since that's the context in which I initially read it. But even still...

[MissingNo.]

But those comments were quote-mined from a different source with no clear indication of that fact. It doesn't matter if Dawkins never got a chance to see the original thread and assumed it was of a similar nature (not that this would be a point in his favour anyway). The point is from the context of the Outrage post, he seems to be implying that the quotes came from RD.net. He was either being intentionally misleading or extremely careless. Based on what I know about Dawkins, I'm inclined to believe the latter but I don't really know.

[lordpasternack]

Richard can get a little emotionally worked up at times, and be a little more careless than usual with his words. There may also have been some reasoning for why he wouldn't credit his source: maybe he didn't want to cause more attention to be drawn towards the "petulant brats", and maybe he didn't want to make it too evident publicly that he'd been browsing this forum, for whatever reason.

I'll take this particular slip pretty much at face-value...

[MissingNo.]

Like I said, based on my assessment of his character, I don't really think he would be intentionally misleading. In which case, this was extremely careless. I've never seen him get emotionally worked up so I don't really know anything about that.

[fuck you & fuck your god]

Kevin - if you read Richard's apology he makes clear what I hypothesised - that he himself read the very comments here, and in writing out the 'Outrage' post, wasn't aware of creating any ambiguity or implication that the comments came from RD.net. He addresses this quite amply in his apology, to my mind.

Am I the only one who found that a bit strange? It's quite clear that anyone who reads Outrage! without knowing those quotes came from here would assume they came from RD.net from the context. He quotes them right after writing about how awful and vitriolic all the responses to closing down the forum were with no mention of any alternative forum in the entire post.

Indeed and his apology doesn't really cover this interpretation. When I read the "outrage" post it seemed rather clear to me that he was referring to the RDNet forum regarding the source of the "foul quotes," and later, when I read his apology, that impression was not changed.

So no, you are not alone in this. I think a lot of members took it the same way.

It seems blatantly obvious he implies the comments were on RDnet:

Outrage:
"You will notice that the forum has in fact been closed to comments (not taken down) sooner than the 30 days alluded to in the letter. This is purely and simply because of the over-the-top hostility of the comments that were immediately sent in."

Sigh.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleCommen ... ge2#464903

It seems that Richard was wrongly informed that the initial thread on RD.net was of a similar character to that which he later found on Rationalia - where Richard got the quotes from in his 'Outrage' piece.

It seems that when Richard wrote the 'Outrage' piece, he didn't make sure to avoid the ambiguity of making it seem like those quotes were from the original RD.net thread.

The original RD.net thread was deleted, so Richard never at the time of writing had any evidence to go on that it was as vitriolic as he wished to claim it was.

But a good user has a cache of a sizeable portion of this original thread (from page 7 - 20) demonstrating that it quite simply wasn't: http://thinking-aloud.co.uk/temp/rdf.html

The fist-shaking ire from some came after various misdemeanors and acts calculated to piss off, were committed by either Josh, Andrew, or both in collusion.

My emphasis.

I really don't see why this is so hard to get one's head around. Admittedly, it's bound to be easier for me - since that's the context in which I initially read it. But even still...

I see where you are coming from, I just can't give RD the benefit of the doubt. It is the way he says "OF COURSE.." as if anyone should immediately know that he meant the opposite of what he said. I know the thread pp.7-20, I was in the midst of it, and your linked article from the front page, that is actually me you are quoting.

Not a satisfactory ending, better by far with the apology, but not enough. To quote that wise person you quoted before, from the same source:

Much has not been said, issues remain hanging, mis-aimed blame not addressed, acknowledgment of the magnitude and variety of the mishandling not evident.

fuck you and fuck your god, aka mechtheist, now crank at rationalskepticism

[Coito ergo sum]

Richard can get a little emotionally worked up at times, and be a little more careless than usual with his words. There may also have been some reasoning for why he wouldn't credit his source: maybe he didn't want to cause more attention to be drawn towards the "petulant brats", and maybe he didn't want to make it too evident publicly that he'd been browsing this forum, for whatever reason.

I'll take this particular slip pretty much at face-value...

I am sure he did not want to mention other sites he might have visited. However, the bottom line for Dawkins, I think, is that he viewed the whole matter as "something so trivial" that the reaction to the alleged injustice, even if the panicking fans were 100% about being ill-treated, was an over-reaction. Everything beyond that on his part is damage control.

[Fact-Man]

But those comments were quote-mined from a different source with no clear indication of that fact. It doesn't matter if Dawkins never got a chance to see the original thread and assumed it was of a similar nature (not that this would be a point in his favour anyway). The point is from the context of the Outrage post, he seems to be implying that the quotes came from RD.net. He was either being intentionally misleading or extremely careless. Based on what I know about Dawkins, I'm inclined to believe the latter but I don't really know.

No man in Dawkins' position should ever be "extremely careless" and if they are, well, they don't belong in the position they occupy.

I think Dawkins was sidetracked being on the road and half a world away and he let Chalkley and Timonen lead him astray; he believed them, and that was a mistake. I don't think he ever came to rationalia, I think Timonen did and found those quotes and fed them to Dawkins, perhaps even implying to him they had come from RDNet.

Dawkins has suffered a much bigger blow to his reputation than he seems able to realize. Perhaps it will dawn later, when his new fngled forum is a flopperoo.

[MissingNo.]

But those comments were quote-mined from a different source with no clear indication of that fact. It doesn't matter if Dawkins never got a chance to see the original thread and assumed it was of a similar nature (not that this would be a point in his favour anyway). The point is from the context of the Outrage post, he seems to be implying that the quotes came from RD.net. He was either being intentionally misleading or extremely careless. Based on what I know about Dawkins, I'm inclined to believe the latter but I don't really know.

No man in Dawkins' position should ever be "extremely careless" and if they are, well, they don't belong in the position they occupy.

I think Dawkins was sidetracked being on the road and half a world away and he let Chalkley and Timonen lead him astray; he believed them, and that was a mistake. I don't think he ever came to rationalia, I think Timonen did and found those quotes and fed them to Dawkins, perhaps even implying to him they had come from RDNet.

Dawkins has suffered a much bigger blow to his reputation than he seems able to realize. Perhaps it will dawn later, when his new fngled forum is a flopperoo.

I agree and I never said that it's okay but it's certainly better than being intentionally misleading.