What if "Outrage" was not written by Dawkins?

[Ronja]

I have read through the Pharyngula post and comments until # 314 (this one: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... sucked.php ) and I think I saw one or two subtle and cautious remarks in the comments thread that questioned whether Richard Dawkins wrote the infamous "Outrage" post himself (it's here: http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 0&t=110356 ). In my (non-linguistic) eyes it does differ from RD's typical style of writing.

How would it change your reaction, if "Outrage" was a forgery? How could "we" (ordinary community members) react constructively if that indeed was the situation?

Just one more hypothesis into the stir...

[95Theses]

Whatever else Josh might have been up to, he's not stupid enough to write that on the front page of Richard's own forums and hope to get away with it.

The note came from Richard without a shadow of a doubt, and will be word for word what Richard wrote, of that you can depend.

The question is wether the quote mining and willful mischaracterisation of events is Richard's own doing or due to a line of horse shit he has been fed by Josh.

I hope it is the latter.

[virphen]

95 nailed it.

[eXcommunicate]

Whatever else Josh might have been up to, he's not stupid enough to write that on the front page of Richard's own forums and hope to get away with it.

The note came from Richard without a shadow of a doubt, and will be word for word what Richard wrote, of that you can depend.

The question is wether the quote mining and willful mischaracterisation of events is Richard's own doing or due to a line of horse shit he has been fed by Josh.

I hope it is the latter.

This. I have no doubt Tricky Dicky wrote the letter. For Josh to forge it would be the height of stupidity. Or... maybe Josh has Dawkins tied up in his basement?!

[skintbuthappy]

I saw the "Outrage" post the same minute it was posted.
Is it significant, does anyone think, that the first time I saw it, it appeared under the byline - and with the "coffee-mug" avatar - of Admin?
The next time I clicked on it, it had RD's byline and avatar.
Significant?
Or have I read too many conspiracy theories these last few days?

[95Theses]

I saw the "Outrage" post the same minute it was posted.
Is it significant, does anyone think, that the first time I saw it, it appeared under the byline - and with the "coffee-mug" avatar - of Admin?
The next time I clicked on it, it had RD's byline and avatar.
Significant?
Or have I read too many conspiracy theories these last few days?

Yes.

Richard will have had no idea how to post that at the very top of the forums like it is, I'm not even sure his account has the privileges necessary to do so.

Richard will have either PM'd or emailed that to Josh with a note asking him to place it front and centre, Josh will have done this through his admin account and forgotten to change the name it was posted under.

[virphen]

I saw the "Outrage" post the same minute it was posted.
Is it significant, does anyone think, that the first time I saw it, it appeared under the byline - and with the "coffee-mug" avatar - of Admin?
The next time I clicked on it, it had RD's byline and avatar.
Significant?
Or have I read too many conspiracy theories these last few days?

I think the answer is simply that RD was unable to post it originally, so it was done for him - later he was added to the admin group which still has posting rights, and so could repost it under his own account.

[Mazille]

I saw the "Outrage" post the same minute it was posted.
Is it significant, does anyone think, that the first time I saw it, it appeared under the byline - and with the "coffee-mug" avatar - of Admin?
The next time I clicked on it, it had RD's byline and avatar.
Significant?
Or have I read too many conspiracy theories these last few days?

It might well be that Josh posted Richard's letter for him and then decided to change the author to Richard himself, as this would just look better. I highly doubt that even Josh is stupid enough to forge it.
That said, even if it were forged, by now Richard would have seen it and since he hasn't done anything about it, he is still in favour of this particular piece of loveliness. Either way, it was a bad move.

[skintbuthappy]

I saw the "Outrage" post the same minute it was posted.
Is it significant, does anyone think, that the first time I saw it, it appeared under the byline - and with the "coffee-mug" avatar - of Admin?
The next time I clicked on it, it had RD's byline and avatar.
Significant?
Or have I read too many conspiracy theories these last few days?

Yes.

Richard will have had no idea how to post that at the very top of the forums like it is, I'm not even sure his account has the privileges necessary to do so.

Richard will have either PM'd or emailed that to Josh with a note asking him to place it front and centre, Josh will have done this through his admin account and forgotten to change the name it was posted under.

I bow to the more tech-savvy.
Ach, this paranoia!

[eXcommunicate]

I saw the "Outrage" post the same minute it was posted.
Is it significant, does anyone think, that the first time I saw it, it appeared under the byline - and with the "coffee-mug" avatar - of Admin?
The next time I clicked on it, it had RD's byline and avatar.
Significant?
Or have I read too many conspiracy theories these last few days?

Easily explained... since the forum was closed down it would require an admin to post the message, so either Josh or the other fella posted it for Richard or they had to make Richard's account into an admin account or something along those lines.

EDIT: 3 other people gave you the same story I did. We are all in on the conspiracy.

[klr]

I saw the "Outrage" post the same minute it was posted.
Is it significant, does anyone think, that the first time I saw it, it appeared under the byline - and with the "coffee-mug" avatar - of Admin?
The next time I clicked on it, it had RD's byline and avatar.
Significant?
Or have I read too many conspiracy theories these last few days?

I've already addressed this point in another post last night. The admin account can change the designated poster of any post, including posts by the admin account itself. Josh Timonen would have been instructed to post what RD had written, and set it so that it was actually posted by RD. Perhaps RD himself is just as affected by the read-only status as everyone else? The forum admin account would not be affected though.

As remarked above, it would beggar belief if this were a spoof.

EDIt: About half a dozen people got in before me with the same explanation. Must be less ponderous ...

[skintbuthappy]

I saw the "Outrage" post the same minute it was posted.
Is it significant, does anyone think, that the first time I saw it, it appeared under the byline - and with the "coffee-mug" avatar - of Admin?
The next time I clicked on it, it had RD's byline and avatar.
Significant?
Or have I read too many conspiracy theories these last few days?

Easily explained... since the forum was closed down it would require an admin to post the message, so either Josh or the other fella posted it for Richard or they had to make Richard's account into an admin account or something along those lines.

EDIT: 3 other people gave you the same story I did. We are all in on the conspiracy.

BASTARDS!
I knew it was all a plot.

Poor Skint - kept in the dark and fed bullshit again.

[eXcommunicate]

I saw the "Outrage" post the same minute it was posted.
Is it significant, does anyone think, that the first time I saw it, it appeared under the byline - and with the "coffee-mug" avatar - of Admin?
The next time I clicked on it, it had RD's byline and avatar.
Significant?
Or have I read too many conspiracy theories these last few days?

Easily explained... since the forum was closed down it would require an admin to post the message, so either Josh or the other fella posted it for Richard or they had to make Richard's account into an admin account or something along those lines.

EDIT: 3 other people gave you the same story I did. We are all in on the conspiracy.

BASTARDS!
I knew it was all a plot.

Poor Skint - kept in the dark and fed bullshit again.

We were paid handsomely. We got free Scarlet-A t-shirts too.

[skintbuthappy]

I saw the "Outrage" post the same minute it was posted.
Is it significant, does anyone think, that the first time I saw it, it appeared under the byline - and with the "coffee-mug" avatar - of Admin?
The next time I clicked on it, it had RD's byline and avatar.
Significant?
Or have I read too many conspiracy theories these last few days?

Easily explained... since the forum was closed down it would require an admin to post the message, so either Josh or the other fella posted it for Richard or they had to make Richard's account into an admin account or something along those lines.

EDIT: 3 other people gave you the same story I did. We are all in on the conspiracy.

BASTARDS!
I knew it was all a plot.

Poor Skint - kept in the dark and fed bullshit again.

We were paid handsomely. We got free Scarlet-A t-shirts too.

They'll go so beautifully with your lily livers and yellow bellies.
Bastards.

[CTC]

The question is wether the quote mining and willful mischaracterisation of events is Richard's own doing or due to a line of horse shit he has been fed by Josh.

I tend toward a mixture of the two. I wrote a blog entry about it here, and what seems evident to me is that Dawkins was never going to object to *being fed* a line of crap from Josh. Simply ask, "Who benefits?" and the whole situation - from the timing after the fundraiser to Dawkins' business far from home - begins to resolve. Dawkins realizes his forum isn't really "his"; that, in hindsight, it wasn't anymore immune to (what he might characterize as) Sturgeon's Law than anything else, despite every indication under the sun that it would turn into exactly the sort of place it ultimately became. So, to be rid of this thing that kind of embarrasses him, he leaves town, disconnects somewhat, and tells his hatchet-men to move forward -- "And the less I know, the better." The hatchet-men conveniently remove the initial traces of dissent that led to the lockdown, wipe up their own footsteps on their way back out, and then assemble just the sort of jaundiced, overblown commentary Dawkins needs to feel justified in writing off the whole project.

You have to give them credit for not just combating theists but picking up a few tricks from them along the way.