Times Online- Richard Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans

A forum to talk about other sites and things you've found in the jungle that is the internet.

Please take a moment to read the rationalia guidelines: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449
Post Reply
User avatar
goodboyCerberus
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:47 am
About me: They mostly come at night. Mostly.
Location: Columbia, Maryland, USA
Contact:

Re: Times Online- Richard Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans

Post by goodboyCerberus » Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:08 pm

Chauncey Gardner wrote:
goodboyCerberus wrote:
Chauncey Gardner wrote:it's called rational thinking...perhaps some of you should try it sometime, or better still..try it over here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/
Just make it your goddamn sig.
no way. It's just for the angry mob who arrived over the last few days.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/

do you want me to make you a cup of tea before you go?
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop spamming the link. What's your rationale for doing so? Its a turn-off.
Mysturji wrote:Someone please send me a link to that photo of Josh and Richard (the un-captioned version). I can't find it.
I feel a lol-celeb coming on. :shifty:
Please, no.
Image
Charity Navigator - "Find a charity you can trust."

User avatar
GenesForLife
Bertie Wooster
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Times Online- Richard Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans

Post by GenesForLife » Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:08 pm

Chauncey Gardner wrote:
GenesForLife wrote:
Chauncey Gardner wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Chauncey Gardner wrote:did you embed an mp3 of the worlds smallest violin with that post?
Have you something better to do here than post glib and frankly worthless snide asides?
you mean like rush around various sites sticking knives in the back of richard dawkins and josh?

nope.

I don't subscribe to MOB RULE, Calilasseia.
Considering that there is only one story being played out in the press at the moment, and a vastly distorted one at that, I wonder who is sticking knives in whose backs?
Presenting the full picture is not frickin' mob rule, however much you try to subject it to mental distortion to try and make it look that way...
so you have the full picture? Were you sitting beside josh all week this week...as well as sitting beside richard when he wrote his "outrage" missive?

mob rule is declaring someone guilty based on speculation......and usually when people are cross about something.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but, I refuse to be a cheerleader for mob rule or stick knives in the backs of richard or josh before the full facts emerge, the dust settles and the red mist clears.

it's called rational thinking...perhaps some of you should try it sometime, or better still..try it over here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/
Considering that Josh and Dawkins themselves have stated their side of thing, it is only fair that the other side be heard too...
And btw, mob rule is defined as "control or government by a gang" , not "Declaring someone guilty based on speculation" , checking out the dictionary, may be you should try it sometime.

Also, coming to rational thinking, the corroborative evidence and the circumstantial evidence are both stronger in favor of the ex-mods and the staff than it is with the other side, who carried out certain inexplicable actions such as the deletion of user accounts (mind you I didn't notice that account deletion was part of the FUA, and that punishment stopped at a ban for even the most flagrant violation of the rules) and the disabling of the PM function, not to mention blocking off signatures and preventing the relocation of posters at other forums, which to me also looks like a violation of fundamental human rights, especially when it was in private.

While I do not claim to know what exactly transpired, on the balance of probabilities it looks like both parties may be to blame, but the way it is being made out in the media is that it was all the ex-staff's fault, and there is no mention of the aforementioned, all of which did really happen, and I don't see any reason why those steps were undertaken (why delete accounts when one could just impart temporary suspensions? or clean up threads? why delete accounts of everyone who tried to contact RD?)

That is my position,and I've made my stand for it.

User avatar
mozg
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:25 am
About me: There's not much to tell.
Location: US And A
Contact:

Re: Times Online- Richard Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans

Post by mozg » Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:09 pm

I think the worst part, for me, is not that Dawkins and Timonen wanted to change the site. It's that Timonen is going to such lengths to destroy all that information and seems to be on a personal mission to ensure that the community must die.

It's not enough for him to just not have the community posting on RD.net... He seems driven to ensure that it not exist anywhere.

I can't imagine why or what harm could come from it.

Timonen: This community and the way that it operates is no longer welcome here.
Community: We can all go elsewhere and live out our lives in peace, continuing our community outside your reach.
Timonen: I can't let that happen either.

WTF?
'Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! ..But He loves you.' - George Carlin

User avatar
GenesForLife
Bertie Wooster
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Times Online- Richard Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans

Post by GenesForLife » Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:10 pm

And also, if I remember some of that thread which led to that meltdown was saved? Why would someone destroy evidence if it was not going to harm them?

User avatar
goodboyCerberus
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:47 am
About me: They mostly come at night. Mostly.
Location: Columbia, Maryland, USA
Contact:

Re: Times Online- Richard Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans

Post by goodboyCerberus » Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:11 pm

[Edit: nevermind]
Last edited by goodboyCerberus on Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Charity Navigator - "Find a charity you can trust."

User avatar
Chauncey Gardner
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:50 pm
About me: Dubliner.
Contact:

Re: Times Online- Richard Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans

Post by Chauncey Gardner » Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:13 pm

GenesForLife wrote:While I do not claim to know what exactly transpired, on the balance of probabilities it looks like both parties may be to blame, but the way it is being made out in the media is that it was all the ex-staff's fault, and there is no mention of the aforementioned, all of which did really happen, and I don't see any reason why those steps were undertaken (why delete accounts when one could just impart temporary suspensions? or clean up threads? why delete accounts of everyone who tried to contact RD?)

That is my position,and I've made my stand for it.
I'm not disagreeing with you....I think the RDF team could have handled the communication much better, but, the reaction from some people has been indefensible. particularly when it's without the full facts, or as you put it so well "claim to know what exactly transpired".

why delete accounts when one could just impart temporary suspensions? or clean up threads? why delete accounts of everyone who tried to contact RD?

That's what suggests to me there's more to this than what's been speculated across on peter harrisons blog and on here. It doesn't stack up. Either josh completely lost the plot, after so many years putting up with a lot of grief over the site and technical issues, or there was a valid reason to revoke the permissions of certain moderators.

User avatar
goodboyCerberus
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:47 am
About me: They mostly come at night. Mostly.
Location: Columbia, Maryland, USA
Contact:

Re: Times Online- Richard Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans

Post by goodboyCerberus » Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:14 pm

Chauncey Gardner wrote:[Either josh completely lost the plot, after so many years putting up with a lot of grief over the site and technical issues, or there was a valid reason to revoke the permissions of certain moderators.
Entire post histories gone forever != permissions, unless you are talking about the proposed "front page" format.
Last edited by goodboyCerberus on Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Charity Navigator - "Find a charity you can trust."

Mazille
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:53 pm

Re: Times Online- Richard Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans

Post by Mazille » Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:16 pm

Chauncey Gardner wrote:It doesn't stack up. Either josh completely lost the plot, after so many years putting up with a lot of grief over the site and technical issues, or there was a valid reason to revoke the permissions of certain moderators.
Man, get a grip.
My entire account was deleted. I wasn't demoted from my mod-status, but my entire 5000+ posts are gone, along with another approximately 25000 posts from five other members and mods. My account, my posts and all I have ever done on RDF.

User avatar
owtth
The Enchanter
Posts: 1674
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:21 pm
About me: Well y'know
Location: Barcelona
Contact:

Re: Times Online- Richard Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans

Post by owtth » Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:17 pm

Chauncey Gardner wrote: It doesn't stack up. Either josh completely lost the plot, after so many years putting up with a lot of grief over the site and technical issues, or there was a valid reason to revoke the permissions of certain moderators.

So what he did was ridiculous therefore he must have had a valid reason for doing so? You are just chock full of effluent aren't you?
At least I'm housebroken.

User avatar
Calilasseia
Butterfly
Butterfly
Posts: 5272
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:31 pm
About me: Destroyer of canards, and merciless shredder of bad ideas. :twisted:
Location: 40,000 feet above you, dropping JDAMs
Contact:

Re: Times Online- Richard Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans

Post by Calilasseia » Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:18 pm

mozg wrote:I think the worst part, for me, is not that Dawkins and Timonen wanted to change the site. It's that Timonen is going to such lengths to destroy all that information and seems to be on a personal mission to ensure that the community must die.

It's not enough for him to just not have the community posting on RD.net... He seems driven to ensure that it not exist anywhere.

I can't imagine why or what harm could come from it.

Timonen: This community and the way that it operates is no longer welcome here.
Community: We can all go elsewhere and live out our lives in peace, continuing our community outside your reach.
Timonen: I can't let that happen either.

WTF?
I'm reminded of something that Hannah Arendt said about the progression from Kristallnacht to the Wannsee Conference and beyond. Namely:
Hannah Arendt wrote:They said first, "you shall not live amongst us as Jews". Then, they said, "you shall not live amongst us". Finally, they said simply, "you shall not live".
I sincerely hope Timonen is never given real political power, because if he is, he'll be a disaster. And it'll simply be a matter of time before he turns that disaster into a humanitarian catastrophe.

The beautiful irony of all this is that I was chatting to someone yesterday about this, and I said as one of my observations, "If I can work out that he has zero personnel management skills, despite my having been diagnosed with bloody Asperger's, then it really is an eloquent testament to how ill suited he is to the job".

User avatar
kiki5711
Forever with Ekwok
Posts: 3954
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:51 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Contact:

Re: Times Online- Richard Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans

Post by kiki5711 » Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:19 pm

you mean like rush around various sites sticking knives in the back of richard dawkins and josh?
[/quote]



For those considering starting a foundation, it's pretty easy to do. This essay outlines some questions to consider as you begin.
Why a Foundation?
Tim Walter, CEO, Association of Small Foundations
First and foremost, the reason to start a foundation is to fulfill a philanthropic mission. Many foundation donors find they can make a significant impact in their chosen field of grantmaking, and many also find a high degree of personal fulfillment. That being said, let's consider a few other issues.
A foundation is an institution. Granted, most of the 60,000 in the U.S. are small institutions, but nonetheless, they are legal entities that can exist separate from an individual. Foundations must operate within the guidelines of a few key federal and state laws, but generally foundations have a significant degree of independence.
A foundation can be established as a trust, with oversight by its trustees, or as a corporation, under the guidance of a board of directors. There are many ways to initially fund a foundation and on what timeline, plus a number of variations on structuring the administrative and grantmaking functions. We're not going to go into these options here, but rather we'll stay with some of the more fundamental questions.
So why establish a philanthropic institution? Why not just give money directly to a charity or set up an endowed fund within a nonprofit organization? These questions raise the issues of permanence and control.
Many foundations are set up with the notion that the endowment is to be permanent. Even small endowments, by providing persistent funding to a cause or charitable organization, can create tremendous public benefit over years. Permanent endowments can also honor and sustain a donor's legacy, which, in turn, can inspire others in the same path -- a living memorial, so to speak.
As for control, many families establish foundations as a way to engender an ethic of community-mindedness among family members and as a way to strengthen family ties by engaging relatives in a constructive, positive endeavor. Having complete control over the foundation helps create a sense of identity, and the foundation is free to operate without the oversight of an unrelated board of directors which is the case when using a donor-advised fund at a community foundation or charitable gift trust.
Before leaving the topics of permanence and control, let us note that not all foundations choose the path of permanence, choosing instead to focus intensely in the short term in hopes that solving a problem sooner will yield more societal benefit over the years. As for control, some donors are willing to give up some control (and pay fees) for the administrative services, legal protection, and a degree of anonymity that can be found with community foundations or charitable gift funds.
Is there a minimum recommended size?
For a simple, permanently-endowed foundation, many advisors think $500,000 seems to be a practical minimum. This estimate seems to be based on the assumption that the foundation will hire professionals, and if so, little income will be left over for grantmaking. However, this assumption is simplistic and does not reflect reality.
The experience of the Association of Small Foundations (ASF) is that many small foundations operate solely using volunteers. There are recurring administrative requirements in filing annual tax returns, but otherwise, a small foundation doesn't generate much paperwork.
Also, don't be fooled by just looking at asset size as a measure of a foundation's potential. Some of the smallest foundations are pass-through vehicles for the donor. On average, ASF's members under $500,000 in assets distribute about 15% of their assets, compared to the 5% typical of the largest foundations. Similarly, a small foundation may be essentially dormant, waiting to be fully funded upon fulfillment of a bequest or sale of an asset. Approximately a third of ASF's member foundations expect additional donations or bequests. Finally, many foundations raise funds on an ongoing basis and consider that activity a core part of their mission.
If our foundation is small, what good is it?
There are many examples of small foundations leveraging their donations to significant impact. Most foundations donate in the towns or cities in which they were formed, and they are able to target their donations to grantees who have reputations for generating results. Small funders can also move quickly and spot overlooked opportunities. Many larger foundations (i.e. Ford, Robert Wood Johnson) look to local grantmakers to first identify future grantees.
Don't forget about the power of permanence, applying subtle but consistent pressure over time to change an organization, an issue, or a community.
Even a small grant can focus the attention of a large organization to direct additional resources to a program. Think of the ability of a mosquito to make a large man move fast.
Finally, consider also the power of convening people around an issue. Your foundation may not have the financial heft required to fund an entire program to solve a social problem in your town, but your foundation might use its cache to convene other funders and social service agencies and thereby inspire collective action.
Is a foundation a way to limit my taxes and to pass wealth to my heirs?
Foundations make sense to fulfill a charitable impulse. As estate planning tools, there are much better options.
Family and friends of the donor may be employed by a foundation, even if they are board members or trustees. However, their skills and compensation must be reasonable and we feel should be commensurate with the charitable work of the foundation. Furthermore, the IRS and the public have a right to review a foundation's grants and expenses to ensure compliance with laws that prohibit self-dealing and inappropriate use of foundation assets.
Is a foundation expensive to set up?
There are a few important things to take care of when setting up a foundation. If done correctly from the start, this early work will pay dividends in easing yearly upkeep. In addition, there are some basic, prudent practices to learn and follow related to "do's and don'ts" of who may receive grants and compensation from the foundation.
We recommend securing the assistance of an attorney to help with the incorporation, bylaws and IRS filings, and obviously you should get expert help on tax planning and investing. Budgeting $2,000 to $5,000 for these services is typical. And, if none of your current advisors are good at understanding board dynamics or grantmaking regulations (especially decision-making and succession) get someone to advise you on how to select a board and establish rules for board service. (You might consider joining ASF to learn these issues. On a case by case basis, ASF staff can decide whether to admit a foundation that is in formation.)
Is a foundation complicated or expensive to operate?
You don't need a website, fancy stationery, an auditor, or staff to run a foundation. For operations, the boards of incorporated foundations must meet at least once per year, and many meet a just a few times around holidays (trusts may not even have to meet annually). Some foundations track their grants using a card file, others use a spreadsheet, and still others spend about $5,000 for administrative software. You'll want to be able to track your investments with monthly or quarterly reporting, and if your grant volume is not that high and your investments are managed in one place, filing your own annual tax returns is not arduous. You are dealing with the IRS, and filing your annual taxes are required, so if this is not your cup of tea, then finding a good bookkeeper or CPA is advisable.
There are a few straightforward rules to follow regarding "self-dealing" and what you need to do to document grants you've made. With the proper operating habits in place, most foundation trustees find that they can focus on the fun parts of running the foundation -- for instance, some enjoy grantmaking, others like the family dynamics of board meetings, and others enjoy managing the endowment.
What can't a foundation do?
While the following list isn't exhaustive, foundations face restrictions or prohibitions in the following areas: giving grants to staff, board members and their families; frivolous spending; direct lobbying; and making investments that are wasteful or imprudent. If your foundation was established as a trust, it can be difficult to change the foundation's grantmaking focus or other conditions specified in the trust document.
Any surprising things a foundation can do?
Sometimes it is incorrectly assumed that foundations are forbidden to make grants to individuals, overseas organizations, and even businesses. In reality, these grants are all allowed, but there are additional requirements a foundation must follow when assessing and documenting the grant.
OK, I'm ready to go forward, what should I read?
For a simple, inexpensive overview of what it's like to run a foundation, read The New Foundation Guidebook, or skim through “Starting a Private Foundation” in Foundation in a Box (both the Guidebook and Foundation in a Box are at http://www.smallfoundations.org). You can also order First Steps in Starting a Foundation by the legal department of the Council on Foundations (http://www.cof.org) and Splendid Legacy:
The Guide to Creating Your Family Foundation by the National Center for Family Philanthropy (http://www.ncfp.org) for an inspirational approach.
As for other Web searching, I'd start with The Professional Directory for Foundations (http://www.smallfoundations.org/PD) where you'll find a list of professionals who serve foundations, including a growing number of listings for many donor-advised funds and community foundations.
See also the Forum of Regional Association of Grantmakers (www.

quote][/quote]
Last edited by kiki5711 on Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
GenesForLife
Bertie Wooster
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Times Online- Richard Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans

Post by GenesForLife » Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:19 pm

goodboyCerberus wrote:
GenesForLife wrote:And also, if I remember some of that thread which led to that meltdown was saved? Why would someone destroy evidence if it was not going to harm them?
It was deleted but not before being copied by several users, as far as I know. Josh probably has a backup copy.
why delete it in the first place? what part of the FUA did it break? I suppose it is illegal to enforce terms that were not subject to the agreement of the signatories when they signed up?

And Chauncey, there is a difference between revoking permissions and deleting accounts with entire histories, or for that matter disabling the signatures of ALL members, ditto with altering the PM system (again for ALL users, not just the mods) , I do suppose you realize that, and that these actions were radical and unwarranted, and not to mention perhaps illegal depending on the terms of the FUA...

So, who overreacted over a "bunch of people" who "overreacted" to "something so trivial" ?

User avatar
Skinny Puppy
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:45 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Times Online- Richard Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans

Post by Skinny Puppy » Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:20 pm

I'm new at cutting and pasting, is this correct? :ask:


Imagine that you, as greatly liked and respected person a legend in your own mind, found yourself overnight subjected to personal vilification exactly what your I deserve but on an unprecedented scale, from anonymous commenters on a website. Suppose [...] that somebody on website expressed a “sudden urge to ram a fistful of nails” give you me back what I gave to them down your throat only I did it up their collective assholes.. Also to “trip you up and kick you in the guts.” be fucked by the same people I just fucked. And imagine seeing your face moderators described, again by an anonymous poster me as no longer needed, as “a slack jawed turd in the mouth mug that's a terrible way to treat people if ever I saw one.
Image

User avatar
GenesForLife
Bertie Wooster
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Times Online- Richard Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans

Post by GenesForLife » Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:20 pm

aaarrrgh Kiki, the quoting, it hurts my eyes :cry:

User avatar
Matt H
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:12 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Times Online- Richard Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans

Post by Matt H » Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:22 pm

Calilasseia wrote:The beautiful irony of all this is that I was chatting to someone yesterday about this, and I said as one of my observations, "If I can work out that he has zero personnel management skills, despite my having been diagnosed with bloody Asperger's, then it really is an eloquent testament to how ill suited he is to the job".
Image

He has shown he has no understanding of the effects of his own actions and the importance of a community.
Last edited by Matt H on Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests