Announcement about RDF Part 3.

[Styrer]

My thoughts on the whole fiasco.

You’ve asked us to take time to understand the events, that’s fair enough. You’ve asked us to wait and see what unfolds and nor act like a pack, that too is understandable.

That’s fine and good judgment.

However, Richard hasn’t done that. He accepted his bum-boy’s sequence of events as true and has turned viciously against 85,000 people without substantiating his facts before he opened his big fat mouth.

He preached his dogmatic bullshit against the Christians for doing what he himself is now doing, making statements without full knowledge of the facts.
Yes you ask us to show restraint. Where is Richard’s restraint?

Why didn’t he investigate this matter, reserve his judgment until he knew what had actually transpired?
Why did he think we’d all turned against him without any logical reason?
Why did he viciously lash out at us?
Why, as a rational thinker and leading member of the atheist community, did he automatically side with Josh?
Why did he dismiss his hard working mods with nary a thought that they worked hard for him and had feelings too?
Why did he cherry pick?
Why has he has gone against everything he’d preached for years. He condemns the likes of Ray Comfort for putting out disinformation, yet follows in Ray’s very footsteps?

I could go on…

He has now shown that he is a man of little or no integrity as a human being. He has done a huge disservice to the very community that once was his strongest supportors.

He has written us off as malcontents and his site will be better off without us.

Yet, he gladly encouraged us, accepted our money for his foundation, was pleased when we bought his propaganda bullshit and supported him.

Fuck him! He deserves the same respect that I give to Christian fundamentalists that twist facts to suit their agenda.

He has played into the hands of the religious fanatics better than they could have ever hoped for in their wildest dreams.

When he learns what the word ‘truth’ means, I may respect him again, until then he can go fuck himself and take his foundation right into the camp of the religious fanatics. They’d love to have him.

He’s done severe and serious damage to the atheist community. He’s shown that his agenda is what is best for him, not what’s best for atheism.

The best I can say is the bastard can go to hell.

1 – He’s either too stupid to know what’s going on, if that’s the case, he shouldn’t be a leader in the atheist community.
2 – He’s lying and employing the same tricks that the Christians use to bamboozle their deluded and mindless followers.
3 – On his site he’s posted virile bullshit to make himself look like the injured party. He assumes that everyone is stupid and will believe his dogmatic bullshit without question.
4 –He seriously underestimated his loyal followers. He thinks we’re dispensable, sorry Richard; we don’t need you now or ever. We’ll survive because what we believe to be true doesn’t come from you; it comes from facts and having an open mind.

He and josh can live in their little world of make believe, what I’m waiting for is a video of Richard using a banana as an example of the disproof of god.

You don't know what is. There must be thousands of emails to go through in sorting this out. And isn't Richard still on a book tour? Look, maybe you're 100% right. But for now, give him time. Wait for him to get home. Wait for him to catch his breath. You don't know if he's had a chance to look at the other side yet.

Julie

Julie (if I may call you this)

Thank you for your wonderful video. It would have been nice to see your face, and I hope you'll give us a glimpse of the head, one day, which contains all your kindness. No joke.

You say that you're not a fan of Richard Dawkins. May I say that I think he is a fan of yours? I noted on the front pages that you two had some kind of connection, and I must say that it made Dawkins seem less of the ivory tower elitist idiot that he now seems intent on being. Thanks for softening the Dawk there.

Nice one, Julie. Kudos.

Sean Tyrer

Okay 3 things:

1. Just because Richard has been online doesn't mean that he's necessarily read the messages, especially if there are tons of them. Even if he has, it may be that he and the other staff are still trying to sort this out.

2. Yes, I am a fan of Richard Dawkins. I just meant in the video that my fandom is not making me blindly side with him. I even said that you guys could be 100% right. Moreover... and I'll say it for the googolplexth time... I simply DON'T KNOW.

3. Dawkins is a fan of mine? And that we have some kind of connection? I suspect you're confusing me with someone else. I don't know him any better than anybody else who's met him briefly and exchanged a total of 2 PMs with him. I am curious to know where you are getting this interpretation from.

Julie

Sorry, Julie. I was just trying to be nice.

Forget I said anything, please.

Sean Tyrer

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

I wasn't trying to be mean. I'd just like clarification on what you're talking about.

Julie

[Ilovelucy]

I have to say that my respect for Dawkins as an intellectual has diminished in the past few years. Don't get me wrong, his scientific advocacy is second to none, but he has not done himself any favours as he has become a critic of religion and a social and cultural commentator. Since then I have engaged with the work of thinkers such as Joseph Campbell, Slavoj Zizek and others, people that have a far better understanding of human culture, atheists and agnostics with far more empathetic and nuanced understandings or religion, mythology and society.

However, I still held quite an affection for his tenacity and pugnaciousness. I sort of found it endearing when he got grumpy about stuff or grasped the wrong end of the stick. In a way, his reaction to this, showing him to have little regard for a hard working team of volunteers, has been helpful. I feel that I have finally left the cult of Dawkinsians by shedding the affectionate attachment I still had for him, despite the slow diminishing of my intellectual awe. As the dust settles I see one silly don who I couldn't give a stuff for and a horde of colleagues and online friends who I still hold in high esteem.

I'm sorry, mate, but I don't understand your phrase 'cult of Dawkinsians'. What on earth do you think the man is? You cite such others as Campbell and Zizek, and who is to say that, once similarly immersed in their tomes as you were in Dawkins', you won't be talking of the 'cult of Campbell'?

I think you need to see Dawkins in a proper context. As your commentary on him stands now, it is very unfair.

Sean Tyrer

That's a fair point, I can only speak form my own experience and infer that it may have been the case for others. I certainly hero worshipped Dawkins at one point, as did others. I do not hero worship Campbell and Zizek, not in the way I worshipped Dawkins. Now, my only unhealthy, stalker, hero worship attachment is for Roger Moore. He can do no wrong. Even A View to a Kill is a work of misunderstood genius.

*edit, plus of course, my opinion of Campbell, Zizek and Moore may change if they shaft me in the same way ( as an ex mod) Dawkins has. Might be a bit difficult for Campbell though.

[David M]

Bella, it makes some sense, actually. RD's post a year ago saying he hates moderation has been shown up to be a lie of gargantuan proportions. Even the heavily moderated forum wasn't moderated enough for him. The front pages are next, as the sneakily and silently introduced moderator there called /Mike lives up to his master's expectations by expunging any real discourse unfavourable to the Dawk.

Sad ending, but predictable, once Dawkins started to become more political than academic, signalled late last year by his atrocious, political awarding of the 'Richard Dawkins' award to that cunt of anti-medicine Maher. Shame - I quite liked the bloke once.

Sean Tyrer

A point to note is that the stated policy of the new "front page" like successor to the forum is that all new topics will need to be approved before they appear and that all off-topic posts will be deleted, so its even heavier moderation than it was before.

[fuck you & fuck your god]

Now, my only unhealthy, stalker, hero worship attachment is for Roger Moore. He can do no wrong. Even A View to a Kill is a work of misunderstood genius.

Well, of course, after all the man is a saint isn't he?

[Styrer]

I wasn't trying to be mean. I'd just like clarification on what you're talking about.

Julie

The scope of my post was this:

1. Response to your video, in which you seemed to be negative about yourself
2. Is Julie right to be negative about herself?
3. I answered: No.
4. I tried to make you feel better about yourself by commenting that Dawkins likes you (this is demonstrable fact - you appeared on the front pages as InYourFaceNewYorker and made a comment, to which Dawkins on the same thread replied to you as 'Julie'.

After this, you began a series of questions to me which made me feel uncomfortable. I was only trying to be nice to you. That is all.

I hope this is the end of this matter.

Sean Tyrer

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

I wasn't trying to be mean. I'd just like clarification on what you're talking about.

Julie

The scope of my post was this:

1. Response to your video, in which you seemed to be negative about yourself
2. Is Julie right to be negative about herself?
3. I answered: No.
4. I tried to make you feel better about yourself by commenting that Dawkins likes you (this is demonstrable fact - you appeared on the front pages as InYourFaceNewYorker and made a comment, to which Dawkins on the same thread replied to you as 'Julie'.

After this, you began a series of questions to me which made me feel uncomfortable. I was only trying to be nice to you. That is all.

I hope this is the end of this matter.

Sean Tyrer

Okay, I understand. Thanks for trying. Anyway I wasn't trying to be negative about myself. Don't know where you got that from. Also, the series of responses wasn't just to you; they were to what some others were saying. And I think you're reading too much into Richard addressing me by my first name. Three things here:

1. I sign off with my first name
2. He probably has an easy time remembering it, since his daughter's name is Juliet.
3. I don't think he can profess to like or dislike me after such brief interaction. ^_^

Julie

[Styrer]

I have to say that my respect for Dawkins as an intellectual has diminished in the past few years. Don't get me wrong, his scientific advocacy is second to none, but he has not done himself any favours as he has become a critic of religion and a social and cultural commentator. Since then I have engaged with the work of thinkers such as Joseph Campbell, Slavoj Zizek and others, people that have a far better understanding of human culture, atheists and agnostics with far more empathetic and nuanced understandings or religion, mythology and society.

However, I still held quite an affection for his tenacity and pugnaciousness. I sort of found it endearing when he got grumpy about stuff or grasped the wrong end of the stick. In a way, his reaction to this, showing him to have little regard for a hard working team of volunteers, has been helpful. I feel that I have finally left the cult of Dawkinsians by shedding the affectionate attachment I still had for him, despite the slow diminishing of my intellectual awe. As the dust settles I see one silly don who I couldn't give a stuff for and a horde of colleagues and online friends who I still hold in high esteem.

I'm sorry, mate, but I don't understand your phrase 'cult of Dawkinsians'. What on earth do you think the man is? You cite such others as Campbell and Zizek, and who is to say that, once similarly immersed in their tomes as you were in Dawkins', you won't be talking of the 'cult of Campbell'?

I think you need to see Dawkins in a proper context. As your commentary on him stands now, it is very unfair.

Sean Tyrer

That's a fair point, I can only speak form my own experience and infer that it may have been the case for others. I certainly hero worshipped Dawkins at one point, as did others. I do not hero worship Campbell and Zizek, not in the way I worshipped Dawkins. Now, my only unhealthy, stalker, hero worship attachment is for Roger Moore. He can do no wrong. Even A View to a Kill is a work of misunderstood genius.

*edit, plus of course, my opinion of Campbell, Zizek and Moore may change if they shaft me in the same way ( as an ex mod) Dawkins has. Might be a bit difficult for Campbell though.

That's ok. There's the damned hero-worshipper in all of us. If there isn't, something's gone wrong.

Sean Tyrer

[virphen]

Julie, have you checked out rationalskepticism.org yet?

Your video has made it there, even if you haven't.

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

Julie, have you checked out rationalskepticism.org yet?

Your video has made it there, even if you haven't.

Thanks.

Anyway for those who commented... the video's purpose isn't to tell anybody to shut up, but to step back and try to gain perspective. I've said you could be 100% right. But we don't know. Both sides have seen the same incident from different angles. Both sides have been drunk at the wheel. The only thing that we can do now is give it time. Give it time before making the next move.

[hackenslash]

Okay 3 things:

1. Just because Richard has been online doesn't mean that he's necessarily read the messages, especially if there are tons of them. Even if he has, it may be that he and the other staff are still trying to sort this out.

OK, 1 thing:

I don't know how familiar you are with php boards, but messages stay in your outbox until they're read. I posted my message to him while he was online, and it was read immediately. Either he read it himself, or somebody else was signed in using his account. The latter is against the forum rules. So, he read it and ignored it, or somebody else was pretending to be him. Choose.

Edit:

Oh, and just to head off any suggestion that my message may have been rude, or otherwise inappropriate:

Subject line read 'Respectfully'.

Dear Richard.

I'm not sure if you've seen me around the forum the last year. I have not wanted to send this, but this is getting out of control. We are supposed to be on the same side. I have posted my first ever blog post. It constitutes a history of the last few days, and is, to my knowledge, a fair and accurate account of events. It is in no way an attempt to apportion blame, as I think that regrettable words and actions have been forthcoming from both sides of this dispute.

It is also an expression of my wish that these differences can be resolved, in order that the community that worked as one in the advancement of reason can find a way to do so again. I sincerely hope that lines of communication can be opened.

http://reciprocity-hackenslash.blogspot ... rself.html

My deep gratitude for all you've taught me. You have my respect.

Best regards,

Tony Murphy

Anybody who has been around for the duration will tell you that this has been my approach and attitude since the very beginning.

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

Okay 3 things:

1. Just because Richard has been online doesn't mean that he's necessarily read the messages, especially if there are tons of them. Even if he has, it may be that he and the other staff are still trying to sort this out.

OK, 1 thing:

I don't know how familiar you are with php boards, but messages stay in your outbox until they're read. I posted my message to him while he was online, and it was read immediately. Either he read it himself, or somebody else was signed in using his account. The latter is against the forum rules. So, he read it and ignored it, or somebody else was pretending to be him. Choose.

Edit:

Oh, and just to head off any suggestion that my message may have been rude, or otherwise inappropriate:

Subject line read 'Respectfully'.

Dear Richard.

I'm not sure if you've seen me around the forum the last year. I have not wanted to send this, but this is getting out of control. We are supposed to be on the same side. I have posted my first ever blog post. It constitutes a history of the last few days, and is, to my knowledge, a fair and accurate account of events. It is in no way an attempt to apportion blame, as I think that regrettable words and actions have been forthcoming from both sides of this dispute.

It is also an expression of my wish that these differences can be resolved, in order that the community that worked as one in the advancement of reason can find a way to do so again. I sincerely hope that lines of communication can be opened.

http://reciprocity-hackenslash.blogspot ... rself.html

My deep gratitude for all you've taught me. You have my respect.

Best regards,

Tony Murphy

Anybody who has been around for the duration will tell you that this has been my approach and attitude since the very beginning.

yeah I know about the outbox thing. It could be that he's clicked on messages but hasn't actually read them yet. Or just hasn't gotten around to responding... anyway I'm just saying (again) that you just don't know.

And BTW that was a very good letter you sent him. Hopefully he'll respond in some form, whether to you personally, or to the forum issue in general.

Julie

[hackenslash]

Damn! I just noticed one too many commas in there. Perhaps that's what did it.

[Peter Brown]

But near the end of our days there, I found such hero worship revolting, and was vehemently against all forms of irrational idolising. I think that this is one facet that distinguished the regulars from the newbies -if not post count.

I like heroes, I like others to have heros too. I like to remember certain people who we shall say went above and beyond. But I don’t worship them, as I know only too well they will have traits and ideas I would vomit at, but they do have that good side I would like to think I emulate from time to time.

I still would place Dawkins on that hero shelf, great mind, orator, writer, convictions, but as recently seen quite flawed when looking at the past event in whom he trusted and supported the actions of. Richard is human, time to forgive?

I'd say yes it is also my right as a human to be 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' too!

[hackenslash]

Now, my only unhealthy, stalker, hero worship attachment is for Roger Moore.