Online journalism blog= win!

[lordpasternack]

The latte is of course exactly what happened here.

As opposed to Richard's far more sensible mocha approach.




Sorry.

[lordpasternack]

inaccuracies and perceived injustices just fucking get me going.

As they do me. If I were RD, and found that Josh deliberately misled me as we suspect, he'd never work for me again, no matter how good he was at his job.

As per this - do we have any further info with respect to whether it was Josh or Andrew who did most/some of the things, and whether Josh likely knows all that's gone on and is in some way complicit? He certainly hasn't ratted on Andrew for the gross misdemeanors we're levelling against one or the other of them...

And are we in the possession of some good evidence indicative of the deliberate deleting of possibly incriminating admin logs? Could we calmly and confidently lay evidence in front of Richard and invite him to digest it and think a bit longer about his opinions of various characters?

The schism of 2008 was in my opinion far more hairy and discussion wasn't locked once, and never required being locked.

I think I may have made that comparison as well in another thread somewhere. There was a lot of high emotion and strong feeling sloshing around in public in 2008, and RD was quite ready to let it be aired, as long as it didn't go too far. He even apologised to you after the "thumb sucking" jibe as I recall.

Yes. The jibe wasn't directed at me, but I was instrumental in teasing the apology out of him.

[klr]

inaccuracies and perceived injustices just fucking get me going.

As they do me. If I were RD, and found that Josh deliberately misled me as we suspect, he'd never work for me again, no matter how good he was at his job.

As per this - do we have any further info with respect to whether it was Josh or Andrew who did most/some of the things, and whether Josh likely knows all that's gone on and is in some way complicit? He certainly hasn't ratted on Andrew for the gross misdemeanors we're levelling against one or the other of them...

And are we in the possession of some good evidence indicative of the deliberate deleting of possibly incriminating admin logs? Could we calmly and confidently lay evidence in front of Richard and invite him to digest it and think a bit longer about his opinions of various characters?

I know one of the Australian ex-staffers - Made Of Stars I think (Seven of Nine here?) posted a snapshot "transcript" on an Aussie freethinkers site. This snapshot showed a whole series of very suspect actions by the admin account, including the IP address they were carried out from. This just happens to be the address that chalkers was known to log in from. So he tried to wipe out his tracks, but that involved creating more tracks which were captured for posterity before they too were deleted.

Other actions - such as suppressing signatures and changing the time limit between PMs to something ridiculous - will be almost impossible for Josh/challkers to deny. The only question will be which one of them did it.

EDIT: We don't know that Josh hasn't pointed the finger at chalkers. chalkers could be dead man walking right now, and not even he may know it yet.

...
Yes. The jibe wasn't directed at me, but I was instrumental in teasing the apology out of him.

As I remembered. Treasure it well.

[lordpasternack]

I know one of the Australian ex-staffers - Made Of Stars I think (Seven of Nine here?) posted a snapshot "transcript" on an Aussie freethinkers site.

Made of Stars is Made of Stars here. Seven of Nine is DarwinsBulldog.

This snapshot showed a whole series of very suspect actions by the admin account, including the IP address they were carried out from. This just happens to be the address that chalkers was known to log in from. So he tried to wipe out his tracks, but that involved creating more tracks which were captured for posterity before they too were deleted.

Did he take more than one?

Other actions - such as suppressing signatures and changing the time limit between PMs to something ridiculous - will be almost impossible for Josh/challkers to deny. The only question will be which one of them did it.

Yes, but I mean providing substantive, not just testimonial, evidence to Richard. I suppose the vast history of "Christ, my PMs have gone dodgy;" "mine too," will kinda stand to test, but I was really hoping we could provide the meat and leave Richard to digest and have very little option other than to realise the correct version of events, and how we spoke truths after all - and others may have told him falsehoods.

EDIT: We don't know that Josh hasn't pointed the finger at chalkers. chalkers could be dead man walking right now, and not even he may know it yet.

Well, heaven fucking knows, really...

[95Theses]

Just a question here. A few people have hinted towards this. Do we actually know for sure whether the tidbits from Richard's "Outrage" post where read by Richard himself at the source, or whether they were quotmined by Josh or Andrew and passed onto him?

He read the following PM I sent him 12 hours ago, and the quote it mentions is still up. he knows, he doesn't care.

Dr Dawkins,

Whatever one's postion on the matter of the forums, we must surely agree that for you to be quote-mining others in your announcement is surely beneath you, who have had the tactic turned on you so frequently.

You imply that it was statements like this posted on the RDF forums that necessitated their early closure :

Or that others expressed a “sudden urge to ram a fistful of nails” down your throat

And yet, the quote itself was taken from here :

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... ls#p352349

and is clearly dated after the RDF forums were closed and in context reads :

The bottom line is that I personally am far more offended by Josh's 'handling' of this debacle than I am of the initial decision.

When someone tells me they know that change can be frightening in order to at both times shut me up and patronise me, I get the sudden urge to ram a fistful of nails down their throat.

So, yeah, bad handling.



(I'm glad you've sent a letter. A few well known names with calm and honest opinions might at least wake RD up to what has been done, even if he doesn't care)

It doesn't really sound quite as vitriolic in context does it? Especially when one takes into account the closing statement. Every single quote you cite comes from another website after the closure of RDF and it is disingenuous to claim that they were the reason the website was closed.

If you have any interest in the facts of the matter, may I suggest you ask Josh for a copy of the original RDF thread discussing this matter. If it is unavailbale I believe we have a copy if you would like to see it, it shows nothing like the level of vitriol you attribute to your once loyal forum members and staff.

Honestly, I would have expected more from you.

Yours

*** My Real Name***

[lordpasternack]

He may not have read it. I did an experiment with InYourFaceNewYorker once. We discovered that PMs exit your outbox and go into your 'sent' box automatically just when the other user goes into their inbox. They might not touch that particular PM, and it still goes to 'sent'.

Also, even if he opened it, there is a chance he hasn't done more than skim it - perhaps, yes, out of some weariness or disinterest of the issue. There are people who do kinda sigh and dismiss things as "another squabble". I don't think it's the right approach, mind you...

Edit: Also bear in mind that he might not have spotted the potential for misinterpretation, if he does know that these comments were over here and after the closure of the forum.

Edit2: And Josh or Andrew might have leapt on it at some point...

[klr]

...
He read the following PM I sent him 12 hours ago, and the quote it mentions is still up. he knows, he doesn't care.

Dr Dawkins,

Whatever one's postion on the matter of the forums, we must surely agree that for you to be quote-mining others in your announcement is surely beneath you, who have had the tactic turned on you so frequently.

...

Yours

*** My Real Name***

Excellently pitched. Succinct and to the point. It's message cannot be ignored. That is to say, he cannot avoid understanding what you are saying. But will he do anything about it? He must at this stage be getting the message loud and clear.

He may not have read it. I did an experiment with InYourFaceNewYorker once. We discovered that PMs exit your outbox and go into your 'sent' box automatically just when the other user goes into their inbox. They might not touch that particular PM, and it still goes to 'sent'.

Also, even if he opened it, there is a chance he hasn't done more than skim it - perhaps, yes, out of some weariness or disinterest of the issue. There are people who do kinda sigh and dismiss things as "another squabble". I don't think it's the right approach, mind you...

True, but if he's not actually opened it - and other similar messages - then he must have a truly unmanageable inbox by now. If it was deleted before reading, a return message to that effect would be received. So the worst option is indeed the skim, but this message has no fat to skim (sorry about that ).

[lordpasternack]

If it was deleted before reading, a return message to that effect would be received. So the worst option is indeed the skim, but this message has no fat to skim (sorry about that ).

Not to my knowledge. And I'm sure IYFNY and I did that too. I just deleted one of her messages. Still left her outbox, and she got no indication it wasn't read. The only time I'm aware of a notice being given for deletion is when someone deletes a message they've intended to send you, while it's still hanging in their outbox.

[klr]

If it was deleted before reading, a return message to that effect would be received. So the worst option is indeed the skim, but this message has no fat to skim (sorry about that ).

Not to my knowledge. And I'm sure IYFNY and I did that too. I just deleted one of her messages. Still left her outbox, and she got no indication it wasn't read. The only time I'm aware of a notice being given for deletion is when someone deletes a message they've intended to send you, while it's still hanging in their outbox.

Oh yes, I stand corrected. I always hated those - wondering what was in the message.

I do know from the WIO feature (:shifty:) that he's spent a fair amount of time on-line in the past few days reading his inbox. Not that he could be doing much else of course.

[lordpasternack]

If it was deleted before reading, a return message to that effect would be received. So the worst option is indeed the skim, but this message has no fat to skim (sorry about that ).

Not to my knowledge. And I'm sure IYFNY and I did that too. I just deleted one of her messages. Still left her outbox, and she got no indication it wasn't read. The only time I'm aware of a notice being given for deletion is when someone deletes a message they've intended to send you, while it's still hanging in their outbox.

Oh yes, I stand corrected. I always hated those - wondering what was in the message.

I do know from the WIO feature (:shifty:) that he's spent a fair amount of time on-line in the past few days reading his inbox. Not that he could be doing much else of course.

Perhaps I should drop him a PM? Have you seen him responding to any PMs?

[ficklefiend]

I can't imagine Richard wanting to come over to rationalia and trawl through posts.

Although, I assume whoever found that quote of mine was googling Josh Timonen, because the "in praise of josh timonen" thread wasn't nearly the busiest on here.

[lordpasternack]

I can't imagine Richard wanting to come over to rationalia and trawl through posts.

I can imagine him being curious. Links to this site are all over his bloody defunct forum, after all, and he's a curious type, if nothing else. Or perhaps someone sent him quotes with source URLs and he simply took a cursory glance without taking in any of the context of the conversation.

[klr]

I can't imagine Richard wanting to come over to rationalia and trawl through posts.

Although, I assume whoever found that quote of mine was googling Josh Timonen, because the "in praise of josh timonen" thread wasn't nearly the busiest on here.

I think we can take both of those as given.

Actually, it gives me the heebie-jeebies thinking that RD could be viewing this thread right now ...

[charlou]

Where did those personal attacks (all verbal) RD mentions in his 'outrage' post come from? If they existed and were deleted so that there's now no record of it, no evidence to support the claim those comments were even made, that, in itself, is a clear example of why posts should not be tampered with or deleted.

That aside, RD quotes a handful of alleged personal attacks and uses that to justify the vilification and alienation a vast online community of people? Not rational.

[lordpasternack]

I can't imagine Richard wanting to come over to rationalia and trawl through posts.

Although, I assume whoever found that quote of mine was googling Josh Timonen, because the "in praise of josh timonen" thread wasn't nearly the busiest on here.

I think we can take both of those as given.

Actually, it gives me the heebie-jeebies thinking that RD could be viewing this thread right now ...

Back during the schism of 2008, he made a hypothetically, whimsy toned comment about how he "might even join" us, when he became less busy, as part of his various 'best wishes' and stuff. It'd be a pain in the arse to find now, but it's definitely there. And he's also stated that his main hobby is "fucking".

Perhaps I should demonstrate to him the vast superiority of this site over his by showing him a recent picture of Mousy's arse?