RD.net to be re-revamped!

[Hermit]

...we have to face the prospect that any damage inflicted upon him, as a result of misjudgements arising from the usual human frailties, may well be accompanied by collateral damage upon the whole concept of a reality-based world view, and let's make no mistake here, the ideological stormtroopers for supernaturalism would love nothing better than to see that collateral damage maximised. This is the political reality we have to address and prepare for.

You only have to substitute "the whole concept of a reality-based world view" with "the belief in God's existence" and "supernaturalism" with "atheism" to find that this statement is exactly the same justification for the Vatican's persistent efforts to cover up abuses by its clergy. Calilasseia, no post of yours I ever read has disappointed me more in you as a person than the one I just quoted from.

[Rum]

I think this thread should be moved somewhere more private.

Rum, is it better that these alleged misdemeanours are investigated by the supernaturalist "stormtroopers", or by the very community that is preaching "good without god"?

Who said it was a case of either/or?

And who said it was our place to investigate anything? If Heather wishes to that is up to her, but she is throwing out suggestive and accusatory information which is being read by anyone who wishes to read it or stumbles upon it. That in turn is generating speculation, judgement calls about a high profile public figure and that wonderful spiral of judgement by internet speculation which we see so often these days.

[Thinking Aloud]

Set up our own mini version of Private Eye here?

Might be a good idea both from the standpoint of keeping the forum safe, and from the standpoint of allowing a robust discussion of tactics that isn't going to be snooped upon.

The point I was making therein, is that we have to prepare for a post-Dawkins world, one in which he is no longer around,

...

Are you seriously suggesting we should do nothing here?

Are you seriously suggesting that Rationalia is the place where such an atheist counterstrike will emerge from? ...

Once again, I find it rather amusing to see this sort of hyperbolic response to my post. Did I actually call for people here at Rationalia specifically to man the barricades? Er, no. Though if any here want to, I see no reason to get in their way if they possess the relevant skills.

Hyperbole? No. I was just connecting your posts in a way that seemed to made sense. And no, I didn't say you did, but you seemed to imply the use of the forum for "discussing tactics" along those lines. Hence my question, and comparison to A+, who tried to do something similar, albeit by attempting to boot out the incumbents, rather than plan for their future absence.

[Hermit]

...she is throwing out suggestive and accusatory information which is being read by anyone who wishes to read it or stumbles upon it. That in turn is generating speculation, judgement calls about a high profile public figure and that wonderful spiral of judgement by internet speculation which we see so often these days.

Fucking hell. More Vatican-speak.

Don't you guys realise how similar your motivations for sweeping things under the carpet are to those of the opposition?

[pErvinalia]

...we have to face the prospect that any damage inflicted upon him, as a result of misjudgements arising from the usual human frailties, may well be accompanied by collateral damage upon the whole concept of a reality-based world view, and let's make no mistake here, the ideological stormtroopers for supernaturalism would love nothing better than to see that collateral damage maximised. This is the political reality we have to address and prepare for.

You only have to substitute "the whole concept of a reality-based world view" with "the belief in God's existence" and "supernaturalism" with "atheism" to find that this statement is exactly the same justification for the Vatican's persistent efforts to cover up abuses by its clergy. Calilasseia, no post of yours I ever read has disappointed me more in you as a person than the one I just quoted from.

I don't understand your reaction to his post. It seems fairly innocuous to me. I think he is spot on in his analysis of the fallout of something like this. What's wrong being forwarned and prepared?

[Rum]

...she is throwing out suggestive and accusatory information which is being read by anyone who wishes to read it or stumbles upon it. That in turn is generating speculation, judgement calls about a high profile public figure and that wonderful spiral of judgement by internet speculation which we see so often these days.

Fucking hell. More Vatican-speak.

Don't you guys realise how similar your motivations for sweeping things under the carpet are to those of the opposition?

Selective quoting, not surprisingly.

I suggested making any discussions non public. People can say what they like it goes without saying, but I don't have to like it do I? Or are you insisting I should?

[pErvinalia]

...she is throwing out suggestive and accusatory information which is being read by anyone who wishes to read it or stumbles upon it. That in turn is generating speculation, judgement calls about a high profile public figure and that wonderful spiral of judgement by internet speculation which we see so often these days.

Fucking hell. More Vatican-speak.

Don't you guys realise how similar your motivations for sweeping things under the carpet are to those of the opposition?

Who is suggesting "sweeping anything under the carpet"? It's about sensible measures to protect both the forum and it's members. Rationalia can't stop any of these accusations from becoming public. Rationalia is nothing like the catholic church.

[Svartalf]

...she is throwing out suggestive and accusatory information which is being read by anyone who wishes to read it or stumbles upon it. That in turn is generating speculation, judgement calls about a high profile public figure and that wonderful spiral of judgement by internet speculation which we see so often these days.

Fucking hell. More Vatican-speak.

Don't you guys realise how similar your motivations for sweeping things under the carpet are to those of the opposition?

Selective quoting, not surprisingly.

I suggested making any discussions non public. People can say what they like it goes without saying, but I don't have to like it do I? Or are you insisting I should?

I understand moving this to a more private place, pending making sure that any libelous aspects to the discussion cannot be hung at our door. I don't mind Heather pursuing her private crusade, I'd hate to lose this place.

Now, who's been suggesting that we join LP in trying to bring the RDFRS down to account for its many sins?

[Deep Sea Isopod]

I think this thread should be moved somewhere more private.

Rum, is it better that these alleged misdemeanours are investigated by the supernaturalist "stormtroopers", or by the very community that is preaching "good without god"?

Who said it was a case of either/or?

And who said it was our place to investigate anything? If Heather wishes to that is up to her, but she is throwing out suggestive and accusatory information which is being read by anyone who wishes to read it or stumbles upon it. That in turn is generating speculation, judgement calls about a high profile public figure and that wonderful spiral of judgement by internet speculation which we see so often these days.

I'm not taking sides here, but I have interests, as we all do here, in protecting the forum and it's members.

LP has raised some issues that may interest some people, both believers and non-believers alike, and it's my opinion that it should, at least, be looked into, because when the anti-atheism movement gets wind of this they will jump on it. And this, I believe, is the point Cali is trying to make. Let's put it under wraps before any more is said (we don't know how much damage has already been done), find out the facts , then prepare for the backlash. This may include a "pre-emptive strike", as you will. Get the facts out there first (whether they be good or bad), before they are twisted all out of proportion by those with the anti-atheist agenda, or have them on standby, just in case.
However, if we just sit on this now, there are people out there who will bring up conversations like this and use it to show we knew about it, yet failed to act on it, even trying to cover it up.
Now, any cover up "scandal" will be a step backwards for those atheists fighting for science and reason, and attacking the Vatican for it's own cover up scandal, also the other religions, cults, etc. which peddle their own lies and dishonesty.

[Hermit]

...we have to face the prospect that any damage inflicted upon him, as a result of misjudgements arising from the usual human frailties, may well be accompanied by collateral damage upon the whole concept of a reality-based world view, and let's make no mistake here, the ideological stormtroopers for supernaturalism would love nothing better than to see that collateral damage maximised. This is the political reality we have to address and prepare for.

You only have to substitute "the whole concept of a reality-based world view" with "the belief in God's existence" and "supernaturalism" with "atheism" to find that this statement is exactly the same justification for the Vatican's persistent efforts to cover up abuses by its clergy. Calilasseia, no post of yours I ever read has disappointed me more in you as a person than the one I just quoted from.

I don't understand your reaction to his post. It seems fairly innocuous to me. I think he is spot on in his analysis of the fallout of something like this. What's wrong being forwarned and prepared?

Which parts of "we have to face the prospect that any damage inflicted upon him, as a result of misjudgements arising from the usual human frailties, may well be accompanied by collateral damage upon the whole concept of a reality-based world view" and my equating that with the Vatican's attempts to cover their problems up don't you understand?

[pErvinalia]

The whole lot.

[pErvinalia]

As I said, rationalia isn't the catholic church, or anything even approaching it.

[Hermit]

...she is throwing out suggestive and accusatory information which is being read by anyone who wishes to read it or stumbles upon it. That in turn is generating speculation, judgement calls about a high profile public figure and that wonderful spiral of judgement by internet speculation which we see so often these days.

Fucking hell. More Vatican-speak.

Don't you guys realise how similar your motivations for sweeping things under the carpet are to those of the opposition?

Selective quoting, not surprisingly.

I suggested making any discussions non public. People can say what they like it goes without saying, but I don't have to like it do I? Or are you insisting I should?

Selective for a good reason. I did not mean to address your suggestion to make any discussions non public, although that too sounds depressingly familiar. I selected the bits containing objections this "being read by anyone who wishes to read it or stumbles upon it. That in turn is generating speculation, judgement calls about a high profile public figure and that wonderful spiral of judgement by internet speculation which we see so often these days." because that too sounds eerily like the sort of rationalisation for the Vatican's preoccupation with keeping its wrongdoings secret.

[pErvinalia]

No one is suggesting keeping the alleged wrong-doings of RD secret. They are suggesting keeping any discussion about countering the inevitable smear campaign that will come from the IDiots, "a secret". They are also suggesting that any accusations of libel or slander are reduced by keeping it "a secret".

[Thinking Aloud]

I'm not taking sides here, but I have interests, as we all do here, in protecting the forum and it's members.

LP has raised some issues that may interest some people, both believers and non-believers alike, and it's my opinion that it should, at least, be looked into, because when the anti-atheism movement gets wind of this they will jump on it. And this, I believe, is the point Cali is trying to make. Let's put it under wraps before any more is said (we don't know how much damage has already been done), find out the facts , then prepare for the backlash. This may include a "pre-emptive strike", as you will.

This "we" ... who are we talking about? I still don't understand why, if there is concern over the running of RDFRS, this evidence LP and others have accumulated hasn't been taken to the UK Charities Commission or its US equivalent. I can't see any benefit to anyone in posting private correspondence here or anywhere else. It's probably prejudicial, having this stuff in public, not only to any inquiry that might arise, but also to the reliability of the witness who has provided the evidence.

I don't see how "we" (as in Ratz) have any role in finding out the facts in this thing, or indeed preparing for the backlash. What are "we" going to do, exactly? I don't have an objection to people pursuing this (I'm not personally interested), but it doesn't feel like the responsible thing to be doing it in public, and any forum like this, even within the bot-free zone, is public. It's also in this forum's interest not to be caught up in what could be a libel case.

Just my opinion, and I know how much that's worth!