this is hugely embarrassing for regular atheists

[Strontium Dog]

Point taken. Some other implement would do just as well I guess.

I am just deeply suspicious of someone who registers here merely to attack all of us without caring a jot about the facts of the matter. I take that as a personal slur.

[JimC]

Point taken. Some other implement would do just as well I guess.

I am just deeply suspicious of someone who registers here merely to attack all of us without caring a jot about the facts of the matter. I take that as a personal slur.

By all means attack his arguments, and cast doubts on his motivation...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Point taken. Some other implement would do just as well I guess.

I am just deeply suspicious of someone who registers here merely to attack all of us without caring a jot about the facts of the matter. I take that as a personal slur.

You are drawing conclusions about Fred's motivation here. He could just be serious and concerned in the points he's making.

Try and keep the vitriol to a minimum. If you disagree with what he is saying, then argue the points in a reasonable manner. If you think he is trolling, report him to the staff and be prepared to back up your claims with evidence. If, on the other hand, you carry on hurling insults, it will be you that is in the wrong in our eyes, not him.

[charlou]

Most atheists I know are civilised, rational-thinking, liberal-minded and decent human beings

Same.

who don't see the vicious vendetta and personal attacks on Richard Dawkins and his webteam as rational-thinking, civilised, liberal minded or decent.

If this is your characterisation of the very strong criticism of what has happened with the RDnet forums, I disagree with you.

[mozg]

Please tell your friend that the source of the anger is not the closing down of the forum. The source of the anger is how it was done. How the staff were treated. How the contributions of valued members was trashed. And how misrepresentations of the events that took place have been announced publicly by Dawkins, including and most seriously imprecations against the conduct of the (now former) RD.net staff. They are fantastic people. They are our friends. They were treated like shit. That is why a lot of the people your friend is commenting on (ignorantly in my opinion) are so upset.

There is nothing wrong or dishonorable about being angry with someone who sacks all the librarians, sets fire to the library, then calls the librarians arsonists.

In fact, I'd say that's the understandable, correct, human response to such a thing.

[Peter Brown]

That he had made an incorrect diagnosis; the resulting rabid remarks made hours later were a reaction to not the cause of the tech teams management of the situation that day. He would be more constructive to consider the mental processes of the tech team when writing a thesis on how not to manage a web site community.

Look, I'm sorry that I raised the aspergers thing but just to clarify...that's not the context he was looking at it. to use his exact words:

...it's fascinating, more from an anthropological point of view than a psychological point of view because you're dealing with a group of people here but there is clearly some symptoms of aspergers being displayed in the comments on the guardian and the times. Richard and his team needs to tread very carefully now. The reaction is so exceptionally personal and vicious it suggests that it doesn't matter now who was right and who was wrong....it appears to me that the source of the anger is because many of these people became addicted/obsessed with the forum and spent a huge amount of time there. That's not Dawkins' fault but there are parallels with how some people get obsessed with religion.....in my opinion he is doing the right thing to shut it down and change it to be fully moderated....

Well if he wishes to see the reaction as demonstrated by the forum users then if he is American he need look no further than Pearl Harbour or any other public reaction to a unwarranted action. I am going to assume your friend would not crucify himself to put forward the reaction on the streets of American to the actions of Japan were ‘clearly some symptoms of aspergers’. They were annoyed, angry and reacted as such.

Addicted or obsessed has very little to do with ones values being trampled upon and how you react in return. Your friend would have a point if he analysed the tech team’s behaviour on the site. Over reacting is an understatement of their behaviour and management skills.

Unfortunately it was Dawkins fault as by delegation he assumes responsibility and the accountability that those he assigned responsibilities had the required skills sets. They obviously had some technical computer software skills, but not the skills necessary ones for public relations.

Furthermore Dawkins by his response message has quotes that demonstrate inaccuracies to makes me wonder if he was misinformed before making his statement. I have already seen the forum member’s posts regarding not only comments but site management records being deleted to cover up who did what and when.

That has to be an unforgivable action by a senior organisation members who should be beyond reproach and deserves a resignation and an independent internal inquiry as to what other back door activities they might have be involved in just to be sure embezzlement wasn’t going on as well if they had access to funds.

[Sisifo]

What happens in the Internet, stays in the internet. If someone throws eggs to any of the subjects, or even shouts an insult to them in RL, I will agree with you, 100%.

If anyone annoys you, insults you or whatever in the net, you have the right to answer or comment in the net.

If anybody threatens a person in the net, and the answer is going to his house to punch his face, then that person is nuts.

What it has happened is only accesiorally an atheist/philosophical thing. It is an internet thing. It could have happend in a travelling forum, a photography forum, a game forum, whatever. It was a popular internet place screwed up by incompetent and childish administration. And actually, an administration who also failed to see that the net Is Not RL. It doesn't mean that has no importance, but things, especially grudges, should not pour from the net to life.

As stupid and puerile are Josh and Dawkins whining about the insults spitted later, as those who want to "do something" in the Australian Convention. Things must be done... In the net. Things must be said... In the net. If you (RD or anyone) lose sleep or start scheming revenge taking place in Real Life, then, the RDF affaire IS NOT your problem.

There is nothing "rotten" in the Internet, as our Hamlet wannabe professor says. There's the internet. And if anyone mixes both, then they have a Reality problem.

So, as long as important things have happened in the net, important things must be done and said, to the level of shouting... In the net.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...it appears to me that the source of the anger is because many of these people became addicted/obsessed with the forum and spent a huge amount of time there. That's not Dawkins' fault but there are parallels with how some people get obsessed with religion...

Caring about something = religion? That's a new one on me!


So I guess you Regular Atheists(TM) couldn't care less how you are treated online?

[Horwood Beer-Master]

Oh, and as for your comments on Aspergers. It doesn't matter whether-or-not you were accusing everyone who was attacking Dawkins of having Asperger's, what matters is that either way you were still using the phrase "Asperger's traits" as a pejorative.

[Fred Kite]

Uh, huh....anyone who attacks Dawkins has aspergers?

NO. I didn't say that. Why are you trying to twist things?

Here's the abridged version of his email to me:

...it's fascinating, more from an anthropological point of view than a psychological point of view because you're dealing with a group of people here but there is clearly some symptoms of aspergers being displayed in the comments on the guardian and the times. Richard and his team needs to tread very carefully now. The reaction is so exceptionally personal and vicious it suggests that it doesn't matter now who was right and who was wrong....it appears to me that the source of the anger is because many of these people became addicted/obsessed with the forum and spent a huge amount of time there. That's not Dawkins' fault but there are parallels with how some people get obsessed with religion.....in my opinion he is doing the right thing to shut it down and change it to be fully moderated....

I have emboldened the reference to aspergers.

Yes, have you read further?

Well, actually, no of course you haven't because you came on here with an erection to set us all straight without even appraising yourself of the facts first.

What are you talking about? I did read further on your post. Do you accept that I never said "everyone who disagrees with Dawkins has aspergers"?

Why are you trying to twist things?

So, tell me, Fred, what are "regular" atheists like, are they like "real" Americans?

Stop trying to dance away from your accusation.

Do you accept that I never said "everyone who disagrees with Dawkins has aspergers"?

It's a simple question.

[Fred Kite]

Because it was basically a glorified social network where we all went to post abut what we had for lunch right? like this :

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 5#p2746444

Radionuclide Dating Is Rigorous


In order to address this topic at the proper level of detail, something that creationists prefer to avoid at all costs, I shall first begin with a discourse on the underlying physics of radionuclide decay, the precise

why are you trying to distort the discussion?

I never said the richard dawkins forum was a glorified social network where we all went to post abut what we had for lunch

What is it with you people?

Can't you have a normal discussion?

By all means disagree with my core points, but, I fail to see how all this distortion and twisting of things proves anything other than Richard Dawkins was totally right to rejig the forum and weed out people who can't have a rational discussion.

[Fred Kite]

Well if he wishes to see the reaction as demonstrated by the forum users then if he is American he need look no further than Pearl Harbour or any other public reaction to a unwarranted action. I am going to assume your friend would not crucify himself to put forward the reaction on the streets of American to the actions of Japan were ‘clearly some symptoms of aspergers’. They were annoyed, angry and reacted as such.

Addicted or obsessed has very little to do with ones values being trampled upon and how you react in return. Your friend would have a point if he analysed the tech team’s behaviour on the site. Over reacting is an understatement of their behaviour and management skills.

Unfortunately it was Dawkins fault as by delegation he assumes responsibility and the accountability that those he assigned responsibilities had the required skills sets. They obviously had some technical computer software skills, but not the skills necessary ones for public relations.

Furthermore Dawkins by his response message has quotes that demonstrate inaccuracies to makes me wonder if he was misinformed before making his statement. I have already seen the forum member’s posts regarding not only comments but site management records being deleted to cover up who did what and when.

That has to be an unforgivable action by a senior organisation members who should be beyond reproach and deserves a resignation and an independent internal inquiry as to what other back door activities they might have be involved in just to be sure embezzlement wasn’t going on as well if they had access to funds.

I see where you're going with the pearl harbour idea, but, I would say that's self aggrandisement of a very worrying degree and probably a variation of godwins law could be applied to your argument.

I tend to agree with my pal who suggested that the source of the vitriol is probably coming from people who's daily lives revolved around the forum, to a certain degree (not unlike how some people get addicted/obsessed with religion) and aren't really angry with the owner of the site making changes (that would be completely irrational) to his own site, they are really angry with the (perceived) disruption this will have on their lives.

What's worrying is that the obsession has switched to the kerfuffle - some people (like some people on this forum) are completely obsessed with the whys and wherefores to an incredible and completely irrational degree.

As for Dawkins' response...I thought it was an extremely polite way of saying to people who can't handle the changes on the site to "get a life".

I'm glad to see there's a new forum springing up. They've even used the same template as the richard dawkins forum. After a few days, hopefully those spouting vicious and personal attacks on Richard and his team will get over it and get obsessed with that forum.

Perhaps after a week or two, they might even feel a little embarrassed for reacting in the way they did.

Judging by some of the comments on here. I doubt it.

[Animavore]

I fail to see how all this distortion and twisting of things proves anything other than Richard Dawkins was totally right to rejig the forum and weed out people who can't have a rational discussion.

Maybe so but, not the way he did it. By destroying loads of science articles that people spent ages compiling and silencing anyone who spoke against the new proposals and blocking people from being able to contact each other.
If you can't see what the problem is with that I can't help you.

I'm practically neutral on this . A scan through my posts shows that I only asked a few questions about what was going on. My posts and RD.net were mostly just banter and asking questions on topics I was interested in and learning off scientists and philosophers so besides a few articles I had book-marked to read later I haven't lost much but I can still feel for the people who defended Dawkins and evolution, constantly, against creationists mainly and other anti-science people with well written and rigorous articles.
Also a lot of people helped Dawkins with research for books on the forum and he just pulls the plug totally causing disarray instead of discussing with the mods the best way to do a transition. Ok this is mainly Josh's fault from what we can tell at the moment but how and ever what was done was wrong and if you can't see that well then I'm just going to leave it at that. i am not the argumentative type.

[Matt H]

Well if he wishes to see the reaction as demonstrated by the forum users then if he is American he need look no further than Pearl Harbour or any other public reaction to a unwarranted action. I am going to assume your friend would not crucify himself to put forward the reaction on the streets of American to the actions of Japan were ‘clearly some symptoms of aspergers’. They were annoyed, angry and reacted as such.

Addicted or obsessed has very little to do with ones values being trampled upon and how you react in return. Your friend would have a point if he analysed the tech team’s behaviour on the site. Over reacting is an understatement of their behaviour and management skills.

Unfortunately it was Dawkins fault as by delegation he assumes responsibility and the accountability that those he assigned responsibilities had the required skills sets. They obviously had some technical computer software skills, but not the skills necessary ones for public relations.

Furthermore Dawkins by his response message has quotes that demonstrate inaccuracies to makes me wonder if he was misinformed before making his statement. I have already seen the forum member’s posts regarding not only comments but site management records being deleted to cover up who did what and when.

That has to be an unforgivable action by a senior organisation members who should be beyond reproach and deserves a resignation and an independent internal inquiry as to what other back door activities they might have be involved in just to be sure embezzlement wasn’t going on as well if they had access to funds.

I see where you're going with the pearl harbour idea, but, I would say that's self aggrandisement of a very worrying degree and probably a variation of godwins law could be applied to your argument.

I tend to agree with my pal who suggested that the source of the vitriol is probably coming from people who's daily lives revolved around the forum, to a certain degree (not unlike how some people get addicted/obsessed with religion) and aren't really angry with the owner of the site making changes (that would be completely irrational) to his own site, they are really angry with the (perceived) disruption this will have on their lives.

What's worrying is that the obsession has switched to the kerfuffle - some people (like some people on this forum) are completely obsessed with the whys and wherefores to an incredible and completely irrational degree.

As for Dawkins' response...I thought it was an extremely polite way of saying to people who can't handle the changes on the site to "get a life".

I'm glad to see there's a new forum springing up. They've even used the same template as the richard dawkins forum. After a few days, hopefully those spouting vicious and personal attacks on Richard and his team will get over it and get obsessed with that forum.

Perhaps after a week or two, they might even feel a little embarrassed for reacting in the way they did.

Judging by some of the comments on here. I doubt it.

Yet again you've shown colossal ignorance about the situation. People weren't angry because of the changes. Many of us just said, "Ok, time to move on." What enflamed the user base was the behaviour of Josh Timonen. But feel free to ignore this post like you have all the others.

[Luis Dias]

If you can't see what the problem is with that I can't help you.

When I talked with my oftalmologist, he told me that this was a symptom of neural blindness.

FSM forbid, I am not saying that Fred is just impervious to simple reasoning, or blind or any of that matter.

It's just that I have a good PhD friend who studied this thing alot you know...