this is hugely embarrassing for regular atheists

[Strontium Dog]

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

Good job too, I suggested that Fred might benefit from a smack around the face with a blunt instrument, and copped more flak than he did for starting this ridiculous, offensive troll thread

[laklak]

Oh my, my, my. Of course you're right, I hadn't looked at it that way.

Lets see, Josh, with RDs approval if not full support:
1) deletes user accounts and thousands of posts
2) locks the forum in read only mode after promising to keep it open for 30 days
3) severely restricts PM functionality
4) disables sig lines
5) fucking rickrolls download functionality
6) dishonestly portrays comments on another website as being posted on RDF net
7) justifies their actions by quote mining posts on another forum made AFTER the RDF shut down

Now, a couple of us came over here and:
1) called Josh some nasty names

Yeah, pretty fucking clear to me, we're obviously the ones at fault.

Mea fucking culpa..

[Fred Kite]

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.

Why are you so obsessed with who has done wrong? Why are you so obsessed with digging up every little thing, like a gossip columnist and repeating it ad infinitum as if that will make it more true?

Why are you twisting things to portray a nasty element, e.g. "[josh/richard] destroying loads of science articles that people spent ages compiling"? Do you honestly think that they would deliberately destroy interesting data? or do you think some great posts happened to be lost, inadvertently, when a profile was deleted?

Let me repeat again - IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO IS RIGHT OR WHO IS WRONG OR WHO DID WHAT - NOTHING JUSTIFIES THE VICIOUS AND PERSONAL ATTACKS on RICHARD and HIS TEAM.

I'm not interested in discussing who did what, because it doesn't really matter.....the source of the vitriol is from people pissed off because they spent so much time on the forum, they couldn't deal with the sudden disruption to their daily routine. That has nothing to do with who did what and everything to do with the same sort of obsessive/addictive behaviour that religion thrives upon.

You can kid yourself all you like that you are pissed off with josh, or richard or josh's assistants, whatever, that's your choice. But I would suggest that you are deluding yourself.

Give it a week or two, as people settle into their new routines on the new dawkins-like forum on rational sceptisicm and you will see a few of them realise that they totally over reacted and were caught up in the heat of the moment.

[floppit]

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".

How the hell does Dawkins do this? I mean - seriously I don't get it. The announcement was rude, it was not polite, it was rude because it lumped people with the most extreme and least able to live life without reliance on ad hom. Nothing new there, he's been doing the same with religion for years - but what beats the hell out of me is how he manages it without his supporters being able to see it at all. I utterly don't get it - the absolute irony is that Kite's quote above could, weeks before been given by half the people RD is now vilifying in support of him vilifying someone else without apparently being able to see the man is rude, he is not and never has been polite - at least not by anything I would consider a reasonable standard.

How the smeg does he pull it off?

[Fred Kite]

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.

I disagree and I repeat again....IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO WAS RIGHT AND WHO WAS WRONG.

The vicious and personal attacks have been on Richard Dawkins as well as Josh Timonen. It's irrational in the extreme to suggest they are in any way justified.

I understand it was a small group of people who flew off the handle, but, I don't see how you can justify the attacks.

[jd]

Let me repeat again - IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO IS RIGHT OR WHO IS WRONG OR WHO DID WHAT - NOTHING JUSTIFIES THE VICIOUS AND PERSONAL ATTACKS on RICHARD and HIS TEAM.

Nothing? Ever?

[laklak]

You are correct that in a week or so this will be done and dusted. It is a tempest in a teapot. I can only speak for myself here, but I certainly wasn't on RDF as a "fan" of RD. I posted there because I enjoyed the company of like minded people. If calling an obvious asshole a couple of nasty names is the worst thing you've ever seen on the net then you might want to do a bit more surfing, what was said about Josh was bloody mild.

But then again I'm probably not a "regular" atheist, which would make me an "irregular" atheist, I imagine. I'm not sure how all the irregulars out there feel about this, but I'm certainly glad to know how the Vast Silent Regular Atheist Majority feels. I'll try to conduct myself more in accordance with their desires and wishes in the future. Could you direct me to a site where I can read The Regular Atheist Scripture?

[leo-rcc]

The vicious and personal attacks have been on Richard Dawkins as well as Josh Timonen. It's irrational in the extreme to suggest they are in any way justified.

By who's standards? When someone does something I don't agree with, I don't beat around the bush and tell them so. I don't agree with your view on the situation, and I certainly do not agree that you are the one to tell us what is or is not justified.

Richard and his team acted like wankers, and I have no qualms labeling their actions as such.

[Fred Kite]

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".

How the hell does Dawkins do this? I mean - seriously I don't get it. The announcement was rude, it was not polite, it was rude because it lumped people with the most extreme and least able to live life without reliance on ad hom. Nothing new there, he's been doing the same with religion for years - but what beats the hell out of me is how he manages it without his supporters being able to see it at all. I utterly don't get it - the absolute irony is that Kite's quote above could, weeks before been given by half the people RD is now vilifying in support of him vilifying someone else without apparently being able to see the man is rude, he is not and never has been polite - at least not by anything I would consider a reasonable standard.

How the smeg does he pull it off?

Well, I have only been on here for an hour or two and already I'm beginning to get a feel for how Richard must have felt (I mean that for the ex richard dawkins.net forum members. not the rationalia.com members).

The obsession with the richard dawkins forum has switched to an obsession to what happened, what happened when and who is to blame. In the meantime, there's a barrage of abuse and vicious personal attacks being levied at dawkins and timoneon.

It's so fucking irrational it beggars belief.

Dawkins was dead right to shut it down and make it moderator only. I'm only here a short while and already it's becoming unbearable.

[floppit]

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".

How the hell does Dawkins do this? I mean - seriously I don't get it. The announcement was rude, it was not polite, it was rude because it lumped people with the most extreme and least able to live life without reliance on ad hom. Nothing new there, he's been doing the same with religion for years - but what beats the hell out of me is how he manages it without his supporters being able to see it at all. I utterly don't get it - the absolute irony is that Kite's quote above could, weeks before been given by half the people RD is now vilifying in support of him vilifying someone else without apparently being able to see the man is rude, he is not and never has been polite - at least not by anything I would consider a reasonable standard.

How the smeg does he pull it off?

Well, I have only been on here for an hour or two and already I'm beginning to get a feel for how Richard must have felt (I mean that for the ex richard dawkins.net forum members. not the rationalia.com members).

The obsession with the richard dawkins forum has switched to an obsession to what happened, what happened when and who is to blame. In the meantime, there's a barrage of abuse and vicious personal attacks being levied at dawkins and timoneon.

It's so fucking irrational it beggars belief.

Dawkins was dead right to shut it down and make it moderator only. I'm only here a short while and already it's becoming unbearable.

Maybe that's my answer - if RD'S rudeness is aimed at those disliked the disliker can't see it's rude at all. Go figure?

[Luis Dias]

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.

I disagree and I repeat again....IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO WAS RIGHT AND WHO WAS WRONG.

The vicious and personal attacks have been on Richard Dawkins as well as Josh Timonen. It's irrational in the extreme to suggest they are in any way justified.

You're the one obsessed over "the vicious and personal attacks" that haven't .... happened. Not against RD. Josh was somewhat vilified, yes, after the events. People vented after Josh behaved like an asshole, who would have thunk it?

And I call bluff on your incessant callings for "rationality", etc. Normal people don't talk like that. At least that's what my shrink says. And my shrink, don't you dare tell me he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I understand it was a small group of people who flew off the handle, but, I don't see how you can justify the attacks.

The attacks were miniscule and contained within an outside forum, inside a thread where people vented. They were not hate-mails, they were not placed in the RDF forum. They were not intended for Josh to see them. They were also done in a humorous way. Now, do I agree with it? No, no I don't, but I understand.

Because unlike certain people obsessed with "rationality", human beings are emotional too. At least that's what my shrink says. (Or was it my shrimp?)

The real problem happens when RD picks up those lines, lies about them, and declares that this was the common behavior against Josh. This is a huge misrepresentation of what happened. That's not rational.

But this has been pointed out to you before. Again and again. I have little hope for those who keep repeating the same mantra, even after EVERYONE disagreeing and rationally presenting evidence for that disagreement. It's like talking to a recorded tape. At least that's what my shrimp says (or was it my shrink?)

[Animavore]

Let me repeat again - IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO IS RIGHT OR WHO IS WRONG OR WHO DID WHAT - NOTHING JUSTIFIES THE VICIOUS AND PERSONAL ATTACKS on RICHARD and HIS TEAM.

Well we can't be responsible for what everyone says, can we?
I think you missed the part where I said I was neutral?
I couldn't care that much about this. I was talking about having empathy for those that do.

[DMac]

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.

I disagree and I repeat again....IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO WAS RIGHT AND WHO WAS WRONG.

The vicious and personal attacks have been on Richard Dawkins as well as Josh Timonen. It's irrational in the extreme to suggest they are in any way justified.

I understand it was a small group of people who flew off the handle, but, I don't see how you can justify the attacks.

It's less about justifying than putting in proper context. This is a hyperbolic example but...

Genghis Khan invades a village, rapes its women, burns its homes.
After this a villager calls Genghis Khan a supperating rhino twat.

Why would what the villager called Genghis Khan be anything more than a very minor piece of a story about the event? If Genghis Khan insisted that the insults after he destroyed the village were why he had to destroy the village, why would this ever been taken seriously as a narrative, if a journalist wanted to write about the story?

Did any villagers who insulted him after the destruction of their village really HAVE to be polite to Genghis Khan? Why--so the rest of the villagers reasoned criticism of the destruction of their village be taken seriously? One or a few understandably emotional reactions would prevent the others from being heard?

You're an apologist for Genghis Khan, as far as I can see. Or are ignorant about the timeline of events.

[charlou]

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.

Why are you so obsessed with who has done wrong? Why are you so obsessed with digging up every little thing, like a gossip columnist and repeating it ad infinitum as if that will make it more true?

Why are you twisting things to portray a nasty element, e.g. "[josh/richard] destroying loads of science articles that people spent ages compiling"? Do you honestly think that they would deliberately destroy interesting data? or do you think some great posts happened to be lost, inadvertently, when a profile was deleted?

Let me repeat again - IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO IS RIGHT OR WHO IS WRONG OR WHO DID WHAT - NOTHING JUSTIFIES THE VICIOUS AND PERSONAL ATTACKS on RICHARD and HIS TEAM.

I'm not interested in discussing who did what, because it doesn't really matter.....the source of the vitriol is from people pissed off because they spent so much time on the forum, they couldn't deal with the sudden disruption to their daily routine. That has nothing to do with who did what and everything to do with the same sort of obsessive/addictive behaviour that religion thrives upon.

You can kid yourself all you like that you are pissed off with josh, or richard or josh's assistants, whatever, that's your choice. But I would suggest that you are deluding yourself.

Give it a week or two, as people settle into their new routines on the new dawkins-like forum on rational sceptisicm and you will see a few of them realise that they totally over reacted and were caught up in the heat of the moment.

Why are all your opinions (and that's all they are) couched in so much defensive/agressive hostility? You claim to hold a rational position? I don't see it, neither in your opinions nor in your demeanor.

Regarding your demeanor, please read the rationalia guidelines and familiarise yourself with our play nice concept. You're a guest on our forum - treat our members with civility or your account will be suspended.

[Fred Kite]

You are correct that in a week or so this will be done and dusted. It is a tempest in a teapot. I can only speak for myself here, but I certainly wasn't on RDF as a "fan" of RD. I posted there because I enjoyed the company of like minded people. If calling an obvious asshole a couple of nasty names is the worst thing you've ever seen on the net then you might want to do a bit more surfing, what was said about Josh was bloody mild.

But then again I'm probably not a "regular" atheist, which would make me an "irregular" atheist, I imagine. I'm not sure how all the irregulars out there feel about this, but I'm certainly glad to know how the Vast Silent Regular Atheist Majority feels. I'll try to conduct myself more in accordance with their desires and wishes in the future. Could you direct me to a site where I can read The Regular Atheist Scripture?

by "regular" atheist I meant the opposite of those who feel the need to gang together, like those who are ganging up to attack dawkins and timonen, or like those bryghts, who not only ganged together but felt they needed a logo and a brand.

out of curiosity, do you often win arguments by being facetious and sarcastic?

it might come across to some as just as precisely the sort of stuff dawkins would prefer wasn't on his forum?