this is hugely embarrassing for regular atheists

[Clinton Huxley]

I never got the Airfix kit when I had the chance.

Although it was the kit of the Hawk attack craft that I wanted even more.

Your Airfix model would have looked more realistic than the ones on the TV series.....

Or probably not, given the state of my model-building skills back then.

Sir, I will bow to no-one with regards to model-making incompetence. If it still existed, you would weep at the abomination I made of a "Lancaster Bomber".

[owtth]

I once tried to make a B-52, it ended up looking like the USS Enterprise, after the fact this was my intention all along. I blame the glue fumes

[Heresiarch]

Sir, I will bow to no-one with regards to model-making incompetence. If it still existed, you would weep at the abomination I made of a "Lancaster Bomber".

I preferred to call mine "battle damaged".

[klr]

Sir, I will bow to no-one with regards to model-making incompetence. If it still existed, you would weep at the abomination I made of a "Lancaster Bomber".

I preferred to call mine "battle damaged".

The model-building derail is taking shape, just as I had planned.

But unlike that Spitfire I tried to build in 1976.

[NineOneFour]

NO. I didn't say that. Why are you trying to twist things?

Here's the abridged version of his email to me:

...it's fascinating, more from an anthropological point of view than a psychological point of view because you're dealing with a group of people here but there is clearly some symptoms of aspergers being displayed in the comments on the guardian and the times. Richard and his team needs to tread very carefully now. The reaction is so exceptionally personal and vicious it suggests that it doesn't matter now who was right and who was wrong....it appears to me that the source of the anger is because many of these people became addicted/obsessed with the forum and spent a huge amount of time there. That's not Dawkins' fault but there are parallels with how some people get obsessed with religion.....in my opinion he is doing the right thing to shut it down and change it to be fully moderated....

I have emboldened the reference to aspergers.

Yes, have you read further?

Well, actually, no of course you haven't because you came on here with an erection to set us all straight without even appraising yourself of the facts first.

What are you talking about? I did read further on your post. Do you accept that I never said "everyone who disagrees with Dawkins has aspergers"?

Why are you trying to twist things?

So, tell me, Fred, what are "regular" atheists like, are they like "real" Americans?

Stop trying to dance away from your accusation.

Do you accept that I never said "everyone who disagrees with Dawkins has aspergers"?

It's a simple question.

Do you accept any of your posts in this thread to have the slightest shred of truth?

It's a simple question.

[Kristie]

Do you accept any of your posts in this thread to have the slightest shred of truth?

It's a simple question.

Don't hold your breath for that answer, he's not going to be around for about a week.

[NineOneFour]

I fail to see how all this distortion and twisting of things proves anything other than Richard Dawkins was totally right to rejig the forum and weed out people who can't have a rational discussion.

Maybe so but, not the way he did it. By destroying loads of science articles that people spent ages compiling and silencing anyone who spoke against the new proposals and blocking people from being able to contact each other.
If you can't see what the problem is with that I can't help you.

I'm practically neutral on this . A scan through my posts shows that I only asked a few questions about what was going on. My posts and RD.net were mostly just banter and asking questions on topics I was interested in and learning off scientists and philosophers so besides a few articles I had book-marked to read later I haven't lost much but I can still feel for the people who defended Dawkins and evolution, constantly, against creationists mainly and other anti-science people with well written and rigorous articles.
Also a lot of people helped Dawkins with research for books on the forum and he just pulls the plug totally causing disarray instead of discussing with the mods the best way to do a transition. Ok this is mainly Josh's fault from what we can tell at the moment but how and ever what was done was wrong and if you can't see that well then I'm just going to leave it at that. i am not the argumentative type.

Why are you so obsessed with who has done wrong?

Gosh, I don't know, because our writings were deleted by arsonists?

Why are you so obsessed with digging up every little thing, like a gossip columnist and repeating it ad infinitum as if that will make it more true?

Actually, we have evidence on our side. If you were rational, you'd understand that.

It's you that's making asinine and unfounded and arrogant statements, comparing us to people with aspergers or theists.

What crap!

Why are you twisting things to portray a nasty element, e.g. "[josh/richard] destroying loads of science articles that people spent ages compiling"? Do you honestly think that they would deliberately destroy interesting data? or do you think some great posts happened to be lost, inadvertently, when a profile was deleted?

Are you even reading posts on here?

Let me repeat again - IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO IS RIGHT OR WHO IS WRONG OR WHO DID WHAT - NOTHING JUSTIFIES THE VICIOUS AND PERSONAL ATTACKS on RICHARD and HIS TEAM.

Like hell. At this point, I'm writing you off as a Dawkins fanboy. Dawkins and his team can do no wrong, so sayeth Fred.

I'm not interested in discussing who did what, because it doesn't really matter

Yes, we can tell. It didn't happen to you, so you could give a fuck.

.....the source of the vitriol is from people pissed off because they spent so much time on the forum, they couldn't deal with the sudden disruption to their daily routine. That has nothing to do with who did what and everything to do with the same sort of obsessive/addictive behaviour that religion thrives upon.

No, actually, it has to do with wanton destruction of posts. But keep implying we're all somehow warped, stupid, insane, or socially inadequate.

You can kid yourself all you like that you are pissed off with josh, or richard or josh's assistants, whatever, that's your choice. But I would suggest that you are deluding yourself.

If I were you, I'd look in the mirror.

Give it a week or two, as people settle into their new routines on the new dawkins-like forum on rational sceptisicm and you will see a few of them realise that they totally over reacted and were caught up in the heat of the moment.

Yeah, I'm sure the scientists who lost their theses, the 14 year old kid in Alabama from a fundie family who has no idea what happened, and the guy from Iran who was posting through a different IP address so he wouldn't get his head chopped off are just "totally overreacting".

[Feck]

I think you might we waiting a while for an answer

Here laugh at this

[Bella Fortuna]

Is that our new hold music?

[JimC]

What happens in the Internet, stays in the internet. If someone throws eggs to any of the subjects, or even shouts an insult to them in RL, I will agree with you, 100%.

If anyone annoys you, insults you or whatever in the net, you have the right to answer or comment in the net.

If anybody threatens a person in the net, and the answer is going to his house to punch his face, then that person is nuts.

What it has happened is only accesiorally an atheist/philosophical thing. It is an internet thing. It could have happend in a travelling forum, a photography forum, a game forum, whatever. It was a popular internet place screwed up by incompetent and childish administration. And actually, an administration who also failed to see that the net Is Not RL. It doesn't mean that has no importance, but things, especially grudges, should not pour from the net to life.

As stupid and puerile are Josh and Dawkins whining about the insults spitted later, as those who want to "do something" in the Australian Convention. Things must be done... In the net. Things must be said... In the net. If you (RD or anyone) lose sleep or start scheming revenge taking place in Real Life, then, the RDF affaire IS NOT your problem.

There is nothing "rotten" in the Internet, as our Hamlet wannabe professor says. There's the internet. And if anyone mixes both, then they have a Reality problem.

So, as long as important things have happened in the net, important things must be done and said, to the level of shouting... In the net.

Well said, Sisifo, with the proviso that people do come to really enjoy their on-line communities, and hate to see those pleasurable activities curtailed by poor decisions. Some of the disappointment flowing from that has probably gone over the top, and people do need to take a deep breath, step back and consider whether continuing vitriol serves any purpose. However, most of the criticism has been logical, fair and evidence based, and I think has made a compelling case that the actions and decisions taken were unreasonable and unfair.

[NineOneFour]

You are correct that in a week or so this will be done and dusted. It is a tempest in a teapot. I can only speak for myself here, but I certainly wasn't on RDF as a "fan" of RD. I posted there because I enjoyed the company of like minded people. If calling an obvious asshole a couple of nasty names is the worst thing you've ever seen on the net then you might want to do a bit more surfing, what was said about Josh was bloody mild.

But then again I'm probably not a "regular" atheist, which would make me an "irregular" atheist, I imagine. I'm not sure how all the irregulars out there feel about this, but I'm certainly glad to know how the Vast Silent Regular Atheist Majority feels. I'll try to conduct myself more in accordance with their desires and wishes in the future. Could you direct me to a site where I can read The Regular Atheist Scripture?

I was a fan and continue to be a fan of Dawkins. I find his current actions stupid and unconscionable. But I still respect the man's science and atheist stance. He's a brilliant man, he's just completely out of his element on the Internet.

I'd challenge Fred here to find that I've said anything more than Josh is a fool. If he thinks that is a vicious personal attack, he hasn't been around me much...

In fact, I thought my letter to Professor Dawkins was quite moderated.

[Feck]

Is that our new hold music?

No This is

The fucking longest 2:27 of your life

[Animavore]

The fucking longest 2:27 of your life

Fuck that. I hung up after 20 seconds.

[Feck]

The fucking longest 2:27 of your life

Fuck that. I hung up after 20 seconds.

Well go back and listen to all of it :pissed:

[Animavore]

The fucking longest 2:27 of your life

Fuck that. I hung up after 20 seconds.

Well go back and listen to all of it :pissed:

I'd rather slide down a razor blade and use my balls for brakes.