Richard Dawkins Forum

[klr]

... and oddly enough, so was I.

[lordpasternack]

Dawkins is old hat. It's like having discussion about why Betamax failed.

I did say to him in a recent email that maybe we both have to come to terms with the fact that he's an old codger now.

I think I'm a charming bastard.

Your emails ... Does he reply?

Not often. He probably gets tons, in fairness, and I'm a shitty correspondent myself with the few bits and bobs I get... He has complimented me sincerely via email in the recent past, and hasn't told me to fuck off yet - put it that way...

[klr]

Dawkins is old hat. It's like having discussion about why Betamax failed.

I did say to him in a recent email that maybe we both have to come to terms with the fact that he's an old codger now.

I think I'm a charming bastard.

Your emails ... Does he reply?

Not often. He probably gets tons, in fairness, and I'm a shitty correspondent myself with the few bits and bobs I get... He has complimented me sincerely via email in the recent past, and hasn't told me to fuck off yet - put it that way...

I'm waiting for the day when he sends someone an email with a YouTube link to *that* clip ...

[Hermit]

Perhaps I should have made it explicit that Dawkins' aspiration regarding the gong are the only motivating force in relation to his web presence.

What a frankly bizarre assertion to make... The only motivating force?

Certainly is, and that is because I left one word out. I meant to say: "Perhaps I should have made it explicit that Dawkins' aspiration regarding the gong are not the only motivating force in relation to his web presence." Sorry about that.

[klr]

Perhaps I should have made it explicit that Dawkins' aspiration regarding the gong are the only motivating force in relation to his web presence.

What a frankly bizarre assertion to make... The only motivating force?

Certainly is, and that is because I left one word out. I meant to say: "Perhaps I should have made it explicit that Dawkins' aspiration regarding the gong are not the only motivating force in relation to his web presence." Sorry about that.

Proof positive that it's not only programmers that can cause ructions by omitting a logical operator.

[Pensioner]

I think he is a cunt.

[Svartalf]

Stop insulting the most wonderful body part of all

[Pensioner]

Stop insulting the most wonderful body part of all

It was a compliment not an insult.

[lordpasternack]

The beautiful thing here is - this thread has already elicited more responses than most 'Discussions' over there.

And even comments made here that would have been moderated over there don't count against that observation - because over there the moderated comment is left in its place simply saying 'Comment removed by Moderator'. It isn't physically removed from the thread, and is still counted in the quantity of responses made to the OP.

When the moderators over there were getting their knickers in a twist over a user posting mainly their own satirical cartoons, they cited that the site was considered a site for discussion - and cartoons aren't strictly in line with that. (See what I mean about being petty and priggish?)

Objective observation should tell anyone that it is manifestly NOT a site for discussion. It's a site for looking at. A site for grabbing a few articles from - occasionally a site for looking a little more into and going "how 'bout that?"... But it's just not a site for discussion. The vast, vast, vast majority of visitors are not discussing anything, and won't ever. The vast, vast majority don't click anywhere near the Discussions area. The vast majority don't bother to scroll towards any user comments, ever. Even the majority of registered users who visit regularly aren't bothering to discuss much. The majority don't use it as anything other than a glorified newsfeed - and that's what the site mainly is. It's not a site for discussion. Let's be descriptive and accurate, here.

[Twoflower]

Dawkins is old hat. It's like having discussion about why Betamax failed.

I did say to him in a recent email that maybe we both have to come to terms with the fact that he's an old codger now.

I think I'm a charming bastard.

Your emails ... Does he reply?

Not often. He probably gets tons, in fairness, and I'm a shitty correspondent myself with the few bits and bobs I get... He has complimented me sincerely via email in the recent past, and hasn't told me to fuck off yet - put it that way...

By the way have you sent him the email I was trying to send for you yet?

[Ronja]

Perhaps I should have made it explicit that Dawkins' aspiration regarding the gong are the only motivating force in relation to his web presence.

What a frankly bizarre assertion to make... The only motivating force?

I'm afraid I don't buy that suggestion for a even a millisecond.

+1

[Ronja]

I think I'm a charming bastard.

Oooh YES!

[lordpasternack]

By the way have you sent him the email I was trying to send for you yet?

NO!

[lordpasternack]

Oh, and there's another reason why it's not a site for discussion: the interface is so shit as to discourage real discussion. And a trickle of 'discussions' a day (with likely a corresponding slightly bigger trickle of discussions submitted by users) doesn't exactly elicit a great volume of discourse and debate either. And the Discussions section is kind of tucked away at the bottom there, as a little addendum...

The entire platform is set up with a view to trundling along a stead trickle of poorly populated and entirely transient desultory exchanges - which is what it is getting. The site is not designed for discussion, and it's not predominantly used for discussion. It's just not what it is.

[Cormac]

I've paid much closer attention to Richard...

How many more times do you feel you need to tell us? I happen to think that you are too close. Sometimes one gets a clearer picture from a distance. Not that I think my surmise is any better than yours. I just don't think it is any worse either. Perhaps I should have made it explicit that Dawkins' aspiration regarding the gong are the only motivating force in relation to his web presence. I just rate its influence on his decisions a bit more highly than you do.

Sorry to break my long absence with this comment, but with all due respect, this is the most bullshit assertion I've seen in relation to this whole sorry matter.

If Richard wanted a gong, then he'd have not created a web-presence at all. The role that he played in science until he launched his assault on theism would have been more than enough to get it for him. He'd have been on some honours list or other, sooner rather than later.

Troublemakers don't often feature on those lists, and therefore, running the website could only militate against him getting such an honour.

Now, just to declare my position:

1. I thought the first purge on the RDF forum was spectacularly badly managed.
2. So was the second.
3. So was the closing. In fact, this is probably the single most ridiculous example of management failure I've ever seen. (Although, the real-world consequences aren't as severe of course!).

It is plain to me from having been a prolific poster on that forum way back, that Timonen was an autocratic dog-in-the-manger, and whatever he touched seemed to stink. Now, this may have been because he might simply be an asshole, and someone without any understanding of community, or he might have been protecting what was a very valuable concession that he had got. (Richard effectively gave JT a free licence to use the Dawkins "brand" - quite foolish and shortsighted - akin to George Lucas retaining the merchandising rights for Star Wars.


But to suggest that Richard did all this to get honours? What nonsense. He'd have got them more easily had he not done what he has done.

It seems to me that Richard is a good person, but he has made some very silly decisions over the last few years regarding the community that supports his efforts.

A much better way to handle this issue would have been:

1. A message to the board to say that the forum and the charity were mutually incompatible, for reasons to do with maintaining the charitable status.
2. A statement that the charity and RDF in general would divest itself of the forum, into the hands of a group of trustees, (drawn from the community)
3. The community would be invited to contribute to a fund to maintain and develop the technology underpinning the forum
4. Through a short period, clear space would be imposed between the forum and the foundation. The forum would be renamed, and a statement included to declare that the forum was a separate entity to RDF, under distinct and different control.

From that moment forward, nothing on the board could cause any problem for the charity. Richard would have retained the goodwill of all the board members, (except those ideologically disposed towards him), and the legal issues would have been resolved.

(Unfortunately, the PTB didn't think to ask for the benefit of my wisdom on such matters).



No way did Richard set up the website to get a knighthood.