RD.net to be re-revamped!

[lordpasternack]

Please grind axes about forum policy somewhere else, and I'll grind my axe about RDFRS, here.

There were no 'attacks' on Richard Dawkins here. And I'm sure he's a big enough boy to defend himself if he wants to - and that anyone's defense here means little to him. Especially if he knows as well as I do that certain claims are factual and accurate, and I'm in possession of the evidence - even if said evidence is not easily transferred to forum posts, carrying the full weight of its integrity.

I'm not interested in engaging the uninterested, and the obnoxiously and selectively hyperskeptical - but I will find some decent way of laying down more of what I know to be true.

Also - I feel the need to include my open letter about RDFRS at this juncture - for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

[lordpasternack]

If we can get back on track here ...

Given that [1] RD has been pretty vigorous in tackling supernaturalist absurdities and malfeasance, and [2] this has led to him acquiring a good number of enemies, several of whom, as I've already stated, are willing to fight dirty, in some cases for entirely mercenary reasons (namely, to keep the cash flowing from the rubes to prop up their large houses and car collections), I would have thought that these two facts should have been most apparent to RD himself, and as a corollary, that he might have exercised a little more due care and attention, with respect to ensuring that his organisation was as free as humanly possible from the failings covered here.

That he appears not to have exercised said due care and attention, should be a fairly large red flag here. Particularly given that [3], as I've already stated, any flak RD attracts as a result of failing to apply due diligence in this matter, could very well impact very badly upon people wholly unconnected with the affair. Apart from the disillusionment that would arise amongst those people I've cited in past posts, who looked to RD to provide both a voice for their own concerns, and a counter-example to the familiar and duplicitous apologetic smear we see being erected all too frequently, to the effect that failure to treat mythology as fact purportedly equals some sort of ethical deficiency, there's another issue at stake here. Namely, that in the USA, anti-atheist hatred (and yes, I chose the word 'hatred' deliberately, because there is evidence to support the charge) is of a particularly febrile, venomous nature, and some of the propagandists for fundamentalist lunacy in particular, have no qualms about launching into Streicher-esque tirades against those who happen not to conform to their delusional fantasies. If anyone is in any doubt about what might happen if some of these people succeed in acquiring real power, look up "Dominionism", which constitutes a supremely toxic mix of rampant prosperity theology allied to a fetishistic attachment to the most revolting strictures of Leviticus. Noting these pertinent facts, and being aware of the political dimension applicable here, I would respectfully suggest, does not constitute being an "academic WAG".

It's not just that he obviously hasn't shown due diligence in a number of areas - it's the fact that RDFRS has screwed up numerous times - and he's had several taps on the shoulder about his staff choices and conflict of interest, which he's simply ignored. He's been told and told and told and told and told - mostly by people who cut their losses and gave up trying to tell him.

I haven't the faintest desire to protect him, or sympathise with him about this, anymore. But I am interested in cooperating to find strategies to limit damage where others are concerned.

[pErvinalia]

Perhaps if you weren't just such an obnoxious, vacuous blowhard - more intent on sniping at me than understanding this situation - I'd be a little more committed to doing that.

Reported. Again. Hey, it's a game you enjoy playing.

Spam that report button to your heart's content... if you can't handle the truth.

[pErvinalia]

This is a general reminder for everyone to play nice and avoid personal attacks as per our rules.

Wow. I object to that. Everyone? It was Red Celt initiating stuff, and LordP at most responded to being attacked.

Wrong response. Wrong message.

I don't mind being reminded.

I don't either. But the aggressor -- the initiator -- should receive heightened attention. It is important to address the person who starts shit. They're worse than people who respond in self-defense to shit started by another.

Maybe you should be a moderator on my forum!

[pErvinalia]

That was a general reminder as is not unusual when more than one person breaches the rules at one time. Both RC & LP engaged in personal attacks, if you're looking for names named.

Sure -- she called him a blowhard in response to him calling her a "demented harpy" -- but, it is absolutely clear who the initiator is. I respect the decision, but I just want to be on record as, again, disagreeing with treating those who initiate confrontations no worse than those who respond to them. LP should not have responded. But, the response only came because Red Celt - not for the first time - initiated personal attacks.

It's fine to warn everyone to play nice. But, whoever initiates the melee ought to be given an extra slap. If people would refrain from that initial verbal smack in the face, people would not feel compelled to defend themselves.

I love how you make that appeal when every other time I've gone down that route, it has been a defensive response that has caused it. The same is true here... except that the original person being attacked isn't a member.

If he's not a member, then there is no requirement for anyone to not attack him. However, there IS a requirement for you to not attack a fellow member. It's seems a pretty simple calculus. You attacked a member, that member attacked you back. Now you're sooking. Man up.

[Red Celt]

Now you're sooking. Man up.

Is it International Moron Day, or something?

[pErvinalia]

Man up.

[Red Celt]

Man up.

Intelligence up.

[pErvinalia]

Man. Up.

Listen, you're trying to excuse your blatant childish attack on LP because she allegedly is attacking RD. What she did or didn't do to RD is totally beside the point. You attacked LP, you got warned. Stop whining about LP "attacking" RD as if that has anything to do with your bad behaviour.

[lordpasternack]

Could somebody split this derail, please?

[Red Celt]

Man. Up.

Listen, you're trying to excuse your blatant childish attack on LP because she allegedly is attacking RD. What she did or didn't do to RD is totally beside the point. You attacked LP, you got warned. Stop whining about LP "attacking" RD as if that has anything to do with your bad behaviour.

No. You listen. I'm not whining. I dealt with LP as was duly necessary. The entire conversation didn't occur on this forum. There is nothing to "man up" to. Capice?

[Red Celt]

Could somebody split this derail, please?

This thread (started by you, FFS) was about the redesign of RD.net. Your claims about RD (the person) is already a derail.

[lordpasternack]

This thread (started by you, FFS) was about the redesign of RD.net. Your claims about RD (the person) is already a derail.

Yet again, you're just trying to score points and snipe...

I'm aware that this thread is already derailed - but cutting away everything not entirely in congruence with the OP would be far too laborious to ask for, at this stage. And from RD.net to RD, isn't as big a tangent as RD.net to Rationalia's policy on personal attacks. Now how's about you let go of your reflex action of being oppositional, for approximately 5 seconds or so, and appreciate that you might get your own thread to continue to argue about how you dislike Rationalia's rules, and how you're mightily righteous when flouting them?

It's also lovely that you dealt with me as duly necessary, though. I'm a reformed character, thanks to you and your intervention - as is plain for everybody to see.

[pErvinalia]

Man. Up.

Listen, you're trying to excuse your blatant childish attack on LP because she allegedly is attacking RD. What she did or didn't do to RD is totally beside the point. You attacked LP, you got warned. Stop whining about LP "attacking" RD as if that has anything to do with your bad behaviour.

No. You listen. I'm not whining. I dealt with LP as was duly necessary. The entire conversation didn't occur on this forum. There is nothing to "man up" to. Capice?

No. YOU listen...

[Red Celt]

I don't use the forum rules, I use my own. Usually, they coincide quite happily. Sometimes they don't. When they don't, I'll get a warning... and carry on. I have no need for an argument about the forum rules. I already understand them. And, if you are capable of rationality, you will be able to see (in the above posts) that I haven't argued against the rules. Not once.

Glad to see that your ignore function is working so well, btw.