Apology from Richard Dawkins (Yes Really).

[NineBerry]

Well, he just wrote "To answer NineBerry the criteria of 1) and 2) will be met." This doesn't imply at all that the old content would be available within the new forum.

[Blondie]

Balance is restored

To the force? We all know how that one turns out.

[klr]

Well, he just wrote "To answer NineBerry the criteria of 1) and 2) will be met." This doesn't imply at all that the old content would be available within the new forum.

But it did mean that it would be kept in some way or other, which turned out not to be the case (although it will be now). Unless 30-days-and-then-it's-history means something different to chalkers than to most other people. Anyway, the RD.net forum staff were assured that the data would be ported - IIRC.

[klr]

Balance is restored

To the force? We all know how that one turns out.

"Apology accepted, Captain Needa" - Darth Vader

[maiforpeace]

Now can we please all move on?

[klr]

Moderator, ban thyself.

[Rum]

Go watch TV for a couple of hours and look what happens...sheesh..

Anyway it can't be bad.

[goodboyCerberus]

...

[hackenslash]

I haven't read the thread, so apologies if this has already been suggested here, but here's what I posted at ratskep:

It seems to me, ladles and jellyspoons, that there is an opportunity here.

The forum is gone. Long live the forum. That's the way it is. Whether or not I'll contribute to the front page in any way remains to be seen. I'll have to assess that on its own merits when I see it under load, and I think it a bit daft to decide that you won't like it until that time. I do appreciate that people are still hurt by the way this was handled, and especially the treatment of the moderating staff and the deletion of content. The second of these relatively simple to do (assuming the most recent backua are still in place), so I don't see any reason why that content won't be restored. That question remains to be answered, and at this point it's useless to speculate. The former is a question that requires answer, but at least we now know extant material is safe (on two fronts) and Richard has apologised.

It occurs to me that we want to generate traffic, especially of the kind that Dawkins' name uniquely provides. We can provide the community that we want, and the sort that RDFRS don't want to provide, and they can provide a link on the front page to 'a forum set up by our members, unaffiliated with RDFRS'. We have a forum controlled by the users, separate from, but with the endorsement of, RDFRS.

They get what they want, we get what we want, we're all friends, everybody's happy, and we can get on with building the best and biggest forum for reason on the internet.

I accept his apology as far as it goes, and with the understanding that he's on a very busy book tour. I would expect a more direct apology to the moderating staff and the users who were deleted for supporting the forum.

[gooseboy]

My purpose in writing at that time, however, was rather different: it was simply to express my full support for Josh and my horror at some of the truly appalling personal abuse he had been subjected to during the day. I still stand by that.

FFS. Josh went out looking for abuse and, this being the internet, he managed to find some. He was hardly subjected to it. What he was subjected to (at RD.net) was valid criticism and his response to it was censorship.

This apology doesn't do much for me.

[lordpasternack]

We can provide the community that we want, and the sort that RDFRS don't want to provide, and they can provide a link on the front page to 'a forum set up by our members, unaffiliated with RDFRS'. We have a forum controlled by the users, separate from, but with the endorsement of, RDFRS.

Richard wouldn't do that. He's too fearful/paranoid/protective/prudent of dear RDFRS to endorse publicly a place where people have bondage and visible bumcracks in their avatars, and people talk about other members saving RD.net with a blowjob.

Not going to happen!

[Rum]

We can provide the community that we want, and the sort that RDFRS don't want to provide, and they can provide a link on the front page to 'a forum set up by our members, unaffiliated with RDFRS'. We have a forum controlled by the users, separate from, but with the endorsement of, RDFRS.

Richard wouldn't do that. He's too fearful/paranoid/protective/prudent of dear RDFRS to endorse publicly a place where people have bondage and visible bumcracks in their avatars, and people talk about other members saving RD.net with a blowjob.

Not going to happen!

Tell me, do you usually swallow?

[Blondie]

We can provide the community that we want, and the sort that RDFRS don't want to provide, and they can provide a link on the front page to 'a forum set up by our members, unaffiliated with RDFRS'. We have a forum controlled by the users, separate from, but with the endorsement of, RDFRS.

Richard wouldn't do that. He's too fearful/paranoid/protective/prudent of dear RDFRS to endorse publicly a place where people have bondage and visible bumcracks in their avatars, and people talk about other members saving RD.net with a blowjob.

Not going to happen!

It is stingingly brought home to me now that I should have been a whole lot nicer to you on RD.net..

[Elessarina]

Richard wouldn't do that. He's too fearful/paranoid/protective/prudent of dear RDFRS to endorse publicly a place where people have bondage and visible bumcracks in their avatars, and people talk about other members saving RD.net with a blowjob.

You forget that not everyone wants to see images of bondage and bumcracks

[Blondie]

Richard wouldn't do that. He's too fearful/paranoid/protective/prudent of dear RDFRS to endorse publicly a place where people have bondage and visible bumcracks in their avatars, and people talk about other members saving RD.net with a blowjob.

You forget that not everyone wants to see images of bondage and bumcracks

I suspect they're in the grave minority.