For Reason and Science?

[Svartalf]

Well, why didn't he shag honest and competent ladies, at least?

[laklak]

To be fair, the crazy lunatic ones are usually a better shag.

[Svartalf]

Don't I know it...

[Jason]

Moby Dick writ small and insignificant. Keep hunting that white whale though.

[JimC]

Moby Dick writ small and insignificant. Keep hunting that white whale though.

Sperm wail...

[lordpasternack]

Sorry, I just had to. Just something so tempting about self-congratulatory narcissism.

If I'd had the space, I would have written more clearly, "your penis and your public image".

[DaveDodo007]

Sorry, I just had to. Just something so tempting about self-congratulatory narcissism.

If I'd had the space, I would have written more clearly, "your penis and your public image".

Tut, tut, isn't that non sequitur slut shaming.

[lordpasternack]

I wouldn't have any problem if he were a scrupulously honest serial philanderer, who didn't let his sexual relationships interfere with his impartiality in running his charity, and his basic honesty and decency towards other human beings, including his wife.

He spends a great deal of his time flattering himself as a "lover of truth", while lying his arse off about a number of issues relating to the creation and running of his Foundation. He prioritises preservation of his self-image, and his sexual relationships, over basic honesty, decency and professionalism. And he'll lie about those who tell the truth about that. Because, despite humming and hawing about how he has no shame about his actions - he doesn't have the guts just to admit them.

Part of his negligence towards RDF is due in part to him being more preoccupied with chasing skirt than keeping tabs on serious professional matters - and one of the main reasons it has taken so long for any kind of action to be taken against REC, is that Richard has serious difficulties in seeing past his own bell-end. Such behaviour is not compatible with a genuine love of truth.

I'd have far more respect for him if he were a straight and honest slut, who ran his affairs like he cared enough about truth to put it before his penis.

[Brian Peacock]

... I don't want someone whose financial conduct is only marginally better than Kent Hovind's, claiming to represent me or people like me. At this stage, I have to say I'm seriously disappointed that he's fucked about in this manner. Though perhaps it was naive of me to expect better. But then, I didn't know about his shag banditry until I started sniffing around these threads.

Ditto (though I'm not bothered what kind of gravy he likes on his meat).

[Calilasseia]

Oh this is going to be fun. The hoo-ha has now moved to Twitter. About the only way it could be even more like the apocryphal Chinese curse, is if LP had taken this to 4chan and handed it to the /b/tards.

[lordpasternack]

I'm not really big on Twitter, so that will mostly just go down as a little snark.

Dawkins has blocked me on Twitter, but his followers still see my tweet, and I get the feeling that Dawkins still checks my profile every-so-often, to see what I'm saying.

Sometimes, other users will get into conversation with me, and he'll be copied in. He can see those tweets if he's online. He's called out publicly other people he's blocked, when he gets copied into conversations like that. He'll responded to seriously stupid statements from other users without identifying them. But he's never called me out, and never addressed a word that I've said. Ever.

You can't really gauge much from silence - but going from his (failed) attempts to bargain with me, after lying about me when he knew I was telling the truth - I suspect it's because I happen to be a thorn in his side that he actually fears and respects. He only addresses and calls out the "easy" critics, and I'm not one of them.

If he does respond to my criticisms, he does it conveniently out of my sight, where I can't respond myself. That's been his defensive tactic for a long time. And I'm going to suggest that that's less to do with wanting to avoid futile discussion, and more to do with the fact that he rightly worries about what I know, and fully expects that I'd take him apart in argument.

[Tero]

LP, what have you learned about men in this process? Be as sexist as possible!

[lordpasternack]

Who is being sexist?

[Tero]

No it was a chance to be sexist. Let it all hang out.

[lordpasternack]

Tero - Dawkins set up his charity with the explicit agenda of bankrolling his US mistress - sending her "mistress money" and buying her "mistress flats". Their terminology, not mine.

He specifically intended this agenda to interfere with the workings of his charity, and indeed he later had both branches of his charity being run by confirmed mistresses of his.

If it's "sexist" to point out these facts, and then argue that they don't indicate good judgement, self-control or impartiality on Richard's part, then so be it.

I won't generalise. I know many men who do exhibit rudimentary common sense in their sexual relationships.