First reaction by Richard Dawkins.

[Ironclad]

Lord save us...

[Surendra Darathy]

And this guy is supposed to be the most rational person on the planet?

Hardly. By now he is, as the saying goes, famous mainly for being famous, the most ideal fate for an emeritus prof. However, it's not as if he didn't do some thinking at some point in his life.

[Nora_Leonard]

The pathetic thing is it focusses on the absolute worst of the reaction, while completely ignoring all the perfectly calm, rational expressions of frustration and concern made by hundreds of people.

But that's exactly what he does when it comes to religion and religious people. Why should we be surprised?

[Harmonica]

HOLY SHIT.

sudden urge to ram a fistful of nails

That's my post from HERE.



I haven't even read the whole thing yet...

U've always come across as such a nice person

[Bella Fortuna]

I don't think any of the nastiness quoted was from RDF...

Nope. All from here. I suspect that the Josh Timonen who signed up here yesterday actually was Josh.

It wasn't - I know who it was, and it was a joke.

[cowiz]

I don't think any of the nastiness quoted was from RDF...

Nope. All from here. I suspect that the Josh Timonen who signed up here yesterday actually was Josh.

Actually, it was me

[Bella Fortuna]

HOLY SHIT.

sudden urge to ram a fistful of nails

That's my post from HERE.



I haven't even read the whole thing yet...

U've always come across as such a nice person

We're glad to see that it was all a front.

[Mazille]

I don't think any of the nastiness quoted was from RDF...

Nope. All from here. I suspect that the Josh Timonen who signed up here yesterday actually was Josh.

It wasn't - I know who it was, and it was a joke.

Well then, it was someone else.

[Bella Fortuna]

I don't think any of the nastiness quoted was from RDF...

Nope. All from here. I suspect that the Josh Timonen who signed up here yesterday actually was Josh.

Actually, it was me

Acting the twat - no acting required...

[Weaver]

Lacking any other way to express my opinion, I attempted to "report post" on RD's latest rationalization. (How ironic that he's gone from rational thought to rationalizations).

This is a very inaccurate, one-sided view of what happened in the past 24 hours, and completely ignores the major hurt done to so many who considered RD Forums a home. It is evident that Josh's opinion is the only one which matters, and that the hard work done by the moderators and administrators - the REAL work keeping the old forum running - was not only unappreciated, but probably completely ignored.

The totally unprofessional and cowardly way in which the old forum was closed generated understandable anger - that a few have chosen to vent in inappropriate ways shouldn't be taken as justification of the original acts.

[Feck]

+1 Flora

So Uncle Richard won't be coming to play with the Ratz Too much free speech for him, or are we not the right sort of 'moral' atheists ..... not fit to shelter under his banner ........... THAT news is years old BTW and also why Rationalia exists .

[Animavore]

Cheezus Christ!
This shit is deeper than I thought. I really did miss out on a lot of action.

[Simon_Gardner]

I haven’t seen this anywhere else so apologies for duplication.

Outrage

Announcements related to Richard Dawkins, RD.Net and the Richard Dawkins Foundation.

New post by Richard Dawkins » 24 Feb 2010, 18:2

A Message from Richard Dawkins about the website updates

Imagine that you, as a greatly liked and respected person, found yourself overnight subjected to personal vilification on an unprecedented scale, from anonymous commenters on a website. Suppose you found yourself described as an “utter twat” a “suppurating rectum. A suppurating rat’s rectum. A suppurating rat’s rectum inside a dead skunk that’s been shoved up a week-old dead rhino’s twat.” Or suppose that somebody on the same website expressed a “sudden urge to ram a fistful of nails” down your throat. Also to “trip you up and kick you in the guts.” And imagine seeing your face described, again by an anonymous poster, as “a slack jawed turd in the mouth mug if ever I saw one.”

What do you have to do to earn vitriol like that? Eat a baby? Gas a trainload of harmless and defenceless people? Rape an altar boy? Tip an old lady out of her wheel chair and kick her in the teeth before running off with her handbag?

None of the above. What you have to do is write a letter like this:

Dear forum members,

We wanted you all to know at the earliest opportunity about our new website currently in development. RichardDawkins.net will have a new look and feel, improved security, and much more. Visits to the site have really grown over the past 3 1/2 years, and this update gives us an opportunity to address several issues. Over the years we've become one of the world's leading resources for breaking rational and scientific news from all over the net and creating original content. We are focusing on quality content distribution, and will be bringing more original articles, video and other content as we grow.

The new RichardDawkins.net will have a fully-integrated discussion section. This will be a new feature for the site, similar to the current forum, but not identical. We feel the new system will be much cleaner and easier to use, and hopefully this will encourage participation from a wider variety of users.

We will leave the current forum up for 30 days, giving regular users an opportunity to locally archive any content they value. When the new website goes live, you are welcome to submit these posts as new discussions. The forum will then be taken down from the web. You will not loose your username on the new system.

The new discussion area will not be a new forum. It will be different. We will be using a system of tags to categorize items, instead of sub-forums. Discussions can have multiple tags, such as "Education", "Children", and "Critical Thinking". Starting a new discussion will require approval, so we ask that you only submit new discussions that are truly relevant to reason and science. Subsequent responses on the thread will not need approval—however anything off topic or violating the new terms of service will be removed. The approval process will be there to ensure the quality of posts on the site. This is purely an editorial exercise to help new visitors find quality content quickly. We hope this discussion area will reflect the foundation's goals and values.

We know that this is a big decision. We know some of you will be against this change. We ask that you respect our decision and help make this transition as smooth as possible.

We're confident that these changes will improve the site experience and we look forward to seeing what you do with the new system.

Many thanks again.

You will notice that the forum has in fact been closed to comments (not taken down) sooner than the 30 days alluded to in the letter. This is purely and simply because of the over-the-top hostility of the comments that were immediately sent in. Note that there is no suggestion of abolishing the principle of a forum in which commenters can start their own threads. Just an editorial re-organization, which will include a change such that the choice of new threads will be subject to editorial control. Editorial control, mark you, by the person who, more than any other individual, has earned the right to the editor’s chair by founding the site in the first place, then maintaining its high standard by hard work and sheer talent. The aim of the letter is to describe an exciting new revamping of our site, one in which quality will take precedence over quantity, where original articles on reason and science, on atheism and scepticism, will be commissioned, where frivolous gossip will be reduced. The new plan may succeed or it may fail, but I think it is worth trying. And even if it fails, it most certainly will not deserve the splenetic hysteria that the mere suggestion of it has received.

Surely there has to be something wrong with people who can resort to such over-the-top language, over-reacting so spectacularly to something so trivial. Even some of those with more temperate language are responding to the proposed changes in a way that is little short of hysterical. Was there ever such conservatism, such reactionary aversion to change, such vicious language in defence of a comfortable status quo? What is the underlying agenda of these people? How can anybody feel that strongly about something so small? Have we stumbled on some dark, territorial atavism? Have private fiefdoms been unwittingly trampled?

Be that as it may, what this remarkable bile suggests to me is that there is something rotten in the Internet culture that can vent it. If I ever had any doubts that RD.net needs to change, and rid itself of this particular aspect of Internet culture, they are dispelled by this episode.

If you are one of those who have dealt out such ludicrously hyperbolic animosity, you know who should receive your private apology. And if you are one of those who are as disgusted by it as I am, you know where to send your warm letter of support.

Richard

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 0&t=110356

[Don't Panic]

And now look again what Richard quoted:

Imagine that you, as a greatly liked and respected person, found yourself overnight subjected to personal vilification on an unprecedented scale, from anonymous commenters on a website. Suppose you found yourself described as an “utter twat” a “suppurating rectum. A suppurating rat’s rectum. A suppurating rat’s rectum inside a dead skunk that’s been shoved up a week-old dead rhino’s twat.”

He only half read the posts, the insults he mentions as being directed towards him were in fact directed at Josh.

[ReverendClog]

Well, I suppose that is that. Why should Dawkins care after all, he's got the fame and the money, so he's all right Jack.
What he doesn't seem to realise is that the truth is already known and disseminated far and wide across the net - its never going away now and it will come back to haunt him one day. Everyone makes mistakes after all and I'll bet that this is Prof.Dawkins bete noir. He is trying to make it sound as though the subsequent reaction was what justified what lickspittle Josh did. It doesn't.
I'm not going to post anything else on this, I don't have the right compared to most, especially the mods.