|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Death of Dawkins forum?
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I was intrigued by the Forum Users Agreement, particularly by the paras on moderation and right to access. Personally, I'd hate to moderate on that basis.
The forum users' agreement is fascinating, for one thing it states clearly that
quote:
RD.net provides a large, close-knit community where people can share their joys and their troubles.
- which kind of knocks on the head any idea that the community grew up without any encouragement on the part of the management.
It also states
quote:
Richarddawkins.net will not foster or support racist, homophobic or sexist bigotry. Therefore, you may not post hateful, abusive or disparaging content about people's race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender, as this creates an environment that is hostile to the reasonable exchange of views.
- but clearly (from what I saw whenever I dipped into it) disparaging people's religious views and identity was fine and even encouraged.
Whatever could be improved in SoF, I haven't picked up the kind of inherent bias against a certain class of people which was demonstrated on the Dawkins forums - and apparently enshrined in the forum rules.
[ 26. February 2010, 07:36: Message edited by: Arrietty ]
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
Being creative, what message would now be apposite on the side of those red buses?
There's probably no God - and now there's one fewer idols.
[ 26. February 2010, 08:10: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stowaway John
Shipmate
# 15469
|
Posted
I think they need God as moderator. He's a dab hand.
--------------------
Step out of the boat.
Posts: 93 | From: North Wales | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
WhyNotSmile
Shipmate
# 14126
|
Posted
My (brief) experience on the Dawkins forum was of being attacked for being a Christian, being told I was irrational, and being laughed at pretty much every time I tried to engage in debate. I spent a few months trying, because I have a background in science and find the discussions interesting, but in the end the community seemed mainly to be small-minded and obsessive, so I got bored and stopped posting.
What I found particularly difficult was the assumption among many members that 'religious people are stupid', which went pretty much unchallenged, even when believers were making valid points. Admittedly, that was in the early days, and it may have improved with time, but it was frustrating to be in a 'Clear-thinking Oasis' and find so much clear thinking stifled and rejected out of hand for not being the right kind of clear thinking.
In terms of debate, I don't think the Dawkins forum is a huge loss, but I do feel for the people who felt part of the community there and who may have felt it was the only place they could be themselves without being judged. I hope they find a new place.
I think one of the lessons for the Ship is that every member is part of the community and must be valued; communication is a very important part of that. People don't tend to mind change so much if they are kept informed.
--------------------
Come visit:
http://why-not-smile.blogspot.com
- you're always glad you came
Posts: 528 | From: Belfast | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
It does strike me as quite funny that Dawkins has chosen to defend his employee by reproducing all the comments that have been suppressed by the admins:
quote:
Imagine that you, as a greatly liked and respected person, found yourself overnight subjected to personal vilification on an unprecedented scale, from anonymous commenters on a website. Suppose you found yourself described as an “utter twat” 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.” Or suppose that somebody on the same website expressed a “sudden urge to ram a fistful of nails” down your throat. Also to “trip you up and kick you in the guts.” And imagine seeing your face described, again by an anonymous poster, as “a slack jawed turd in the mouth mug if ever I saw one.”
With friends like that ....
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
[ 26. February 2010, 09:56: Message edited by: Arrietty ]
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
WhyNotSmile
Shipmate
# 14126
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
It does strike me as quite funny that Dawkins has chosen to defend his employee by reproducing all the comments that have been suppressed by the admins:
quote:
Imagine that you, as a greatly liked and respected person, found yourself overnight subjected to personal vilification on an unprecedented scale, from anonymous commenters on a website. Suppose you found yourself described as an “utter twat” 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.” Or suppose that somebody on the same website expressed a “sudden urge to ram a fistful of nails” down your throat. Also to “trip you up and kick you in the guts.” And imagine seeing your face described, again by an anonymous poster, as “a slack jawed turd in the mouth mug if ever I saw one.”
With friends like that ....
Dawkins seems to start a lot of his statements and articles in this way... in an 'Imagine you've been walking inncently through life and then someone comes and punches you in the face' kind of style. I find it very negative.
--------------------
Come visit:
http://why-not-smile.blogspot.com
- you're always glad you came
Posts: 528 | From: Belfast | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
He might as well start the sentence, "Imagine that you're Jesus..." and finish it by saying, "...that's what it's like to be me or one of my disciples."
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stowaway John
Shipmate
# 15469
|
Posted
quote:
WhyNotSmile Posted 26 February, 2010 10:37
My (brief) experience on the Dawkins forum was of being attacked for being a Christian, being told I was irrational, and being laughed at pretty much every time I tried to engage in debate. I spent a few months trying, because I have a background in science and find the discussions interesting, but in the end the community seemed mainly to be small-minded and obsessive, so I got bored and stopped posting.
I cannot comment on Dawkins' Forum, but my experience on other similar forums has been exactly the same. I've been forced to conclude that these militant 'new atheists' are a re-skinning of the Pharisees for our day. They seem to hate the messiah and his followers with an absolute venom, accompanying mockery and vitriolic words. I find a good proportion of atheist contributions to be full of self-righteousness and pride. The forums tend to attract a lot of flame-baiters and people with a bit too much time on their hands. A lot of the debates follow really poor logic and arguments tend to be dogma-proving based.
I doubt the internet is a place where rational discussion can actually take place. Too much anonymity means people just go stupid, on both sides.
Much better to make the effort to go and meet people face to face and discuss over a pint. Far 'scarier', but much more productive.
--------------------
Step out of the boat.
Posts: 93 | From: North Wales | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
quote:
Richarddawkins.net will not foster or support racist, homophobic or sexist bigotry. Therefore, you may not post hateful, abusive or disparaging content about people's race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender, as this creates an environment that is hostile to the reasonable exchange of views.
- but clearly (from what I saw whenever I dipped into it) disparaging people's religious views and identity was fine and even encouraged.
I'm surprised that they could be so naive as to think that ethnicity and religious identity were clearly distinct and separable.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
When Steve Baldwin was on Celebrity Big Brother and ramming the Bible down people's throats on a regular basis, there was a spate of very dismissive posts about not just him but religious faith generally by self identified 'Dawkins Believing Atheists' (well that's not quite the phrase they used, but RDs name was cited as a great and enlightened champion of rational thought) on the Digital Spy forums.
Over several days these posters - the ones who identified as Dawkins followers - showed themselves to have absolutely no ability to engage in dialogue or rational argument. Some other self identified atheist posters disassociated themselves from the Dawkins approach and a lot of posters identified themselves as Christians and took issue with them as well.
Maybe something similar was happening on RD.net - since the last thing he seems to be keen to promote is mutual understanding and tolerance that could have been a trigger for deciding to refocus the forums on the sort of threads that supporthis world view.
[X-posted with Erroneous Monk]
[ 26. February 2010, 10:48: Message edited by: Arrietty ]
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stowaway John
Shipmate
# 15469
|
Posted
I think dawkins should take a loooooong sabbatical and go and enjoy what he's REALLY good at, Biology. Perhaps, with hind-sight, he shouldn't have ventured out of the lab in the first place.
Hat-off to the guy. He must've had put up with a hellish amount of putrid stick from all angles that would have driven most over the edge.
If I were him I'd be wanting to walk off into the sunset and let the rabid, foul-mouthed geeks fight it out amongst themselves (life's too short).
I hope he finds some peace.
--------------------
Step out of the boat.
Posts: 93 | From: North Wales | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stowaway John:
I doubt the internet is a place where rational discussion can actually take place. Too much anonymity means people just go stupid, on both sides.
I see where you're coming from, but I find that a too negative view. It depends on luck, I believe. A Liverpool forum I go on tends to have real critical and open debate, unlike others which are full of all manner of slaggings off. That arguments sometimes happen on this Liverpool forum mirrors what real discussions are about sometimes.
Here I find the discussion to be good too. There's the occasional person who are stuck in talking and not listening, but I daresay that's also a mirror of what discussion in real life is like.
In any case, forums are a relatively new method of communication and it'll take time for people to adjust. There's the danger that younger people will be stuck in ghettos of mutual agreement and fuck the rest (or even older people too), but places like here and the Liverpool fans' forum I go on show the way.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
Over several days these posters - the ones who identified as Dawkins followers - showed themselves to have absolutely no ability to engage in dialogue or rational argument. Some other self identified atheist posters disassociated themselves from the Dawkins approach and a lot of posters identified themselves as Christians and took issue with them as well.
In my experience, atheists who most closely associate themselves with Dawkins are often more likely to be of the close-minded and intolerant strain of atheist, whereas the more thoughtful atheists I know tend not to make a cult figure of him so much, and often find him a bit too strident, even if they agree with his basic arguments.
I don't think the problem is specific to Dawkins or atheists, but with personality cults. If you've not thought through your own beliefs in as much depth, then you're more likely to latch onto a perceived champion of your worldview, and be scornfully dismissive of other points of view.
It's sad to see any online community come crashing down like this. But if the fallout from this helps dispel some of the personality cult that has grown up around Dawkins, so much the better.
Anyway, it's not like Christians are ever guilty of personality cults now, is it? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
I hope I've been quite careful to separate out the group I'm talking about - those who seem to self identify as Dawkins 'followers' - from atheists generally. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It's interesting that it does seem like a personality cult.
Perhaps, to answer Simon's question about things to learn, he should be wary of changing the name of this site to SimonJenkins.net any time soon.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stowaway John
Shipmate
# 15469
|
Posted
quote:
Rosa Winkel
Posted 26 February, 2010 12:03
quote:
Originally posted by Stowaway John:
I doubt the internet is a place where rational discussion can actually take place. Too much anonymity means people just go stupid, on both sides.
I see where you're coming from, but I find that a too negative view. It depends on luck, I believe. A Liverpool forum I go on tends to have real critical and open debate, unlike others which are full of all manner of slaggings off. That arguments sometimes happen on this Liverpool forum mirrors what real discussions are about sometimes.
Hear what you're saying Rosa. As a stowaway on board not used to the quality of life on SOF. I'm impressed by the general respect around the place.
Anonymity on the web does encourage the socially inept/down-right wicked to contribute far beyond their means. With the filter of the sheer human effort of getting off one's butt, going out into the cold, wet winter air to a meeting with someone and showing them a certain level of respect (with the risk of a bloody nose if you don't) means effort in = quality out sppose.
Jus thinkin out loud.
The web's a bit of fun/v. poor cousin of real life I think.
--------------------
Step out of the boat.
Posts: 93 | From: North Wales | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wulfstan
Shipmate
# 558
|
Posted
There is what appears to be a first rate analysis of this here , by an interested and sympathetic party.
Even more interesting is his analysis of the problems besetting atheist boards here .
In the first case it does seem that Dawkins and his closest disciples have not been happy with allowing the site to evolve as it's users wanted, but rather wanted it to remain very much in its creator's image. I think that would be the main difference between there and here. And of course Simon, bless him, and lovely chap as I'm sure he is just doesn't have the same cultish following as The Big D. Long may it continue.
But in the second, I don't think there's a single issue that he highlights about atheist boards that couldn't apply to absolutely any other, religious one's especially. And Dr Who sites of course. In fact the traits he regards as problematic are probably more associated with the religious than the atheist. Which just goes to show...
Posts: 418 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt H
Apprentice
# 15501
|
Posted
Hello everyone.
My name is Matt Hone and I was a member of the RichardDawkins.net forum. I feel particularly aggrieved at the amount of misinformation that has emerged in the press this week, from papers such as The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian. All are reporting Richard Dawkins' opinion that the forum was somehow closed due to incivility and abuse. That couldn't be further from the truth.
The webmaster, Josh Timonen, closed down the forum because his behaviour towards the staff had been revealed to us all. He then went on a banning spree, not just banning but deleting thousands of posts and user accounts. One moderator, Mazille, the one responsible for our science-writing award, had all of his contributions eradicated from history. This was purely Stalinesque in nature and undeserving of a foundation that is supposed to represent science and reason.
I note that Peter Harrison's blogs have been linked here. Might I also recommend the personal account of Jerome (an Anglican, who was a popular member at RD.net), who's blog is jerome23.wordpress.com
Posts: 11 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
I've just posted a comment on the Telegraph blog to point that out. I don't know if they'll publish it. And other people have done that elsewhere I think.
Almost all the journalists who've commented seem to have misunderstood RD's post to be referring to himself, but I think I would have done as well if I hadn't been pointed to the background reading here. However you would have thought they might have spent a few minutes looking to see if they could find the other side of the story before posting.
Also I think without background info it would be easy to assume that the comments he's posted were the cause of the closure rather than the fallout.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt H:
Hello everyone.
My name is Matt Hone and I was a member of the RichardDawkins.net forum. I feel particularly aggrieved at the amount of misinformation that has emerged in the press this week, from papers such as The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian. All are reporting Richard Dawkins' opinion that the forum was somehow closed due to incivility and abuse. That couldn't be further from the truth.
The webmaster, Josh Timonen, closed down the forum because his behaviour towards the staff had been revealed to us all. He then went on a banning spree, not just banning but deleting thousands of posts and user accounts. One moderator, Mazille, the one responsible for our science-writing award, had all of his contributions eradicated from history. This was purely Stalinesque in nature and undeserving of a foundation that is supposed to represent science and reason.
I note that Peter Harrison's blogs have been linked here. Might I also recommend the personal account of Jerome (an Anglican, who was a popular member at RD.net), who's blog is jerome23.wordpress.com
Welcome!
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Welcome to the ship Matt H. Although we may joke and scoff here about what has happened, I still think there is a genuine sadness and sympathy at the collapse of a community. Perhaps something may arise out of it to rebuild that community.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt H
Apprentice
# 15501
|
Posted
Thank you.
I'm not too sad about it; the refugees from RD.net have moved to a new site called Rational Skepticism. Anyone is welcome, by the way. As I mentioned before, we have one Christian among us rabid atheists; Jerome, who incidentally won the science-writing award on RD.net before the moderator who ran it was deleted.
I first heard about this place a couple of years ago while talking to two of my friends. They are both Anglicans (one a convert from Catholicism) and said they liked this site. I always meant to join but never got round to it. Now I have the perfect excuse.
[ 26. February 2010, 12:53: Message edited by: Matt H ]
Posts: 11 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
Even more interesting is his analysis of the problems besetting atheist boards here .
That post is basically listing the atheist dead horses! Though the Libertarian one is a bit wider as it's a culture clash.
I'm amused to that pond wars are a problem for atheists too!
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
A bunch of offensive dismissers gets offensively dismissed by their idol of offensive dismissiveness. Sweet.
Apart from Schadenfreude, what is really interesting to me is something quite relevant to SoF. Namely, it is in my opinion the case that bulletin boards and like forums relying heavily on user participation cease to belong to their nominal owners in direct proportion to their actual success. Of course, legally this is not true. Though I think that points to a flaw of our societies and their laws, which privilege the individual and his property above nearly all other concerns. But be that as it may, I think ethically it is sound to say that massive investments of time and energy, even if freely given, establish moral rights of some kind. And where something basically only comes into existence because of such investments, these moral rights establish a kind of ownership by contribution.
This is the rationale of the constant "not fair" chorus we hear now from the smashed RDF community. While lip service is being paid to the legal realities (RD and those acting in his name can by law fuck around with the RDF as they please), most concerned agree that RD ought not have done so. That is an important lesson for all those praising the present dictatorship by ownership of the SoF forums. Dictatorships are never good for communities, even if they are benevolent. The problem is not that Simon (and Erin) are evil and about to wreck the place now, but rather merely that they could destroy this place any time they please, even though morally in my opinion they have long ago lost the right to do so.
I think that with the ever increasing importance of user participation, eventually society will protect by law the digital commonwealths that people are de facto establishing by their efforts all over the net. I find it exciting that the power of the internet does not so much point to some sort of worldwide mega-democracy, but rather to the re-establishment of largely self-governed mid-size communities of interest - now digital rather than geographic or trade-related. In many ways we are heading for the digital middle ages, in my opinion.
[ 26. February 2010, 13:09: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Welcome, Matt H. It seems that loads of folks are blogging - except Josh Timonen, so far as I can see. Doesn't seem to be tweeting much, either. Looks like "head down".
It's a sad story, this. Cyber-communities do develop lives of their own and folks value them. I liked the jerome23 link you provided and here it is at the click of a mouse.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think that with the ever increasing importance of user participation, eventually society will protect by law the digital commonwealths that people are de facto establishing by their efforts all over the net. I find it exciting that the power of the internet does not so much point to some sort of worldwide mega-democracy, but rather to the re-establishment of largely self-governed mid-size communities of interest - now digital rather than geographic or trade-related. In many ways we are heading for the digital middle ages, in my opinion.
Actually, as a lawyer, I have found the various disagreements on this Board very interesting. They do have a constitutional law kind of flavour to some of them, and I think it quite probable that the kinds of disputes that have arisen may one day give rise to legal arguments. I wish I were more of a sociologist, or socio-legal practitioner, as I feel I lack the right tools to really explore the issues thrown up.
Even as a property lawyer, however, I wonder if some sort of constructive trust principles might be brought to bear - people who invest both time and money in somone else's website making a claim for an equitable interest? Proprietary estoppel?
Interesting ...
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt H
Apprentice
# 15501
|
Posted
One thing I've taken from this is that Richard Dawkins likes nothing more than to look down on people. He's an elitist, and he judges everyone by the actions of a few. In the case of RD.net he just arbitrarily decided the whole forum was for gossip and other social things and so he wanted to give it a clear out. He ignored the thousands of discussions relating to science and reason, which should be the aims of the RDF.
Richard Dawkins has demonstrated monstrous self-satisfied ignorance in his 'Outrage' post, where he just took Josh's word on faith. Here was a supposed man of science who couldn't be bothered to investigate further. Much easier to dismiss us all as anonymous savage hoodlums.
People kept trying to tell me that Richard Dawkins is a typical Oxford don who's just part of a completely different culture. I always tried to defend him. Now I'll know better.
Posts: 11 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stowaway John
Shipmate
# 15469
|
Posted
Hi Matt. No one mentioned rabid atheist, but if that's how y read it, apologies for any offence you might have felt there.
My comment was about the foul-mouthed, rabid tirade that ensued towards the guy as it all fell apart and that he should let them get on with it. It's hard to tell exactly where those voices came from.
It's about taking to extremes all the time isn't it. Unfortunately Dawkin's took an extreme view of things and tended to flame bait.... e.g. 'religious education is a form of child abuse.' etc, etc.
He played with fire (people's emotions and deeply held beliefs) and sadly for him, got burnt when people started to throw bombs at each other during the argument he started.
Proof - you should indulge your intelligence in stirring up strife. He'd have made a tenacious doctor somewhere in the developing world. perhaps got a breakthrough on Aids.
--------------------
Step out of the boat.
Posts: 93 | From: North Wales | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt H:
Hello everyone...
My name is Matt Hone and I was a member of the RichardDawkins.net forum...
I note that Peter Harrison's blogs have been linked here. Might I also recommend the personal account of Jerome (an Anglican, who was a popular member at RD.net), who's blog is jerome23.wordpress.com
And he is cj.23, our latest member!
[ 26. February 2010, 13:33: Message edited by: Mr Clingford ]
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt H
Apprentice
# 15501
|
Posted
When I said 'rabid atheists' I was joking, I wasn't referring to anything.
Posts: 11 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
Interesting. It's now going around that it was Christians who posted abusive comments against Dawkins: Blog post about the Richard Dawkins forum closure. It now seems that atheists even have the same persecution complexes as Christians!
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt H
Apprentice
# 15501
|
Posted
Every newspaper is now repeating the error that the RD.net forum was closed due to abuse. Expect to see this in the print media tomorrow. Journalists have obviously taken one look at Richard's 'Outrage' post and decided no further investigation was required.
Posts: 11 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
Perhaps, to answer Simon's question about things to learn, he should be wary of changing the name of this site to SimonJenkins.net any time soon.
Then we'd be subjected to endless threads called 'Thousand best Posts', 'Thousand best Posters', 'Thousand best Hell calls', 'Thousand best Shipmeets', 'Thousand best Big Tops', 'Thousand best Lion-taming Acts' etc. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Alternatively, you could always visit simonjenkins.com where you can stare at the blank screen until the men in white coats come to take you away.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt H:
One thing I've taken from this is that Richard Dawkins likes nothing more than to look down on people. He's an elitist, and he judges everyone by the actions of a few.
Welcome aboard, Matt H!
I think we religious types knew already that Dawkins likes looking down on people. His wilful ignorance of every kind of religion other that nut-job fundamentalism illustrates that clearly enough. I guess some of us have been wondering for a while how long it would be till he started looking down on other atheists too.
I still think it's sad that any forum dedicated to reasonable discussion should end like this. And I agree with those who say that part of the genius of SOF is that the various boards each have their own character. I think our own stormiest moments come when Hell spills over into other areas - usually the Styx. But I think the Ship is also a rather remarkable community. A lot of posters here seem to know each other in real life, and I think that adds both a personal note and a degree of stability to what goes on here.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
I'm trying to figure out what happened to the Dawkins Forum in terms of natural selection. Any suggestions?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
People kept trying to tell me that Richard Dawkins is a typical Oxford don who's just part of a completely different culture.
Thats a little harsh on Oxford dons. Some of them are quite charming ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Seriously, the reaction to this is really fascinating and shows how much at least some neo-atheists have invested emotionally in Dawkins. My guess is that many neo-atheists from ex-fundy backgrounds haven't lost their need for an infallible authority figure....Dawkins has just replaced whatever shiny-suited pastor they were brought up to idolise. And they feel confused and betrayed in just the same way that some fundies feel confused and betrayed when one of their luminaries gets caught with his pants down.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thyme
Shipmate
# 12360
|
Posted
Yerevan, I think you are right. I have been thinking of the quote by, I think, G K Chesterton, that "when people stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything"
Something along those lines.
[ 26. February 2010, 17:06: Message edited by: Thyme ]
--------------------
The Church in its own bubble has become, at best the guardian of the value system of the nation’s grandparents, and at worst a den of religious anoraks defined by defensiveness, esoteric logic and discrimination. Bishop of Buckingham's blog
Posts: 600 | From: Cloud Cuckoo Land | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A bunch of offensive dismissers gets offensively dismissed by their idol of offensive dismissiveness. Sweet.
I definitely need to add a raised eyebrow smilie.
The biggest mistake I see here? Josh Timonen did not let people bitch about the decision. That's just what you do. We've fucked up once or twice here, as well as had decisions that were made and implemented in a matter of days, so I totally understand the "shut up and deal" thought process. But the more you try to control it, the worse it gets. So you, as the one in charge, suck it up. That doesn't seem to be the case.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thyme:
Yerevan, I think you are right. I have been thinking of the quote by, I think, G K Chesterton, that "when people stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything"
Something along those lines.
This quote is another example of a saying which gets attached to a famous person without any real basis.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilfried
Shipmate
# 12277
|
Posted
You mean like half of the Epistles?
Posts: 429 | From: Lefty on the Right Coast | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfried:
You mean like half of the Epistles?
Someone that sceptical could only be an atheist or an Episcopalian. I see you're the former
[ 26. February 2010, 18:04: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfried:
You mean like half of the Epistles?
At least!
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A bunch of offensive dismissers gets offensively dismissed by their idol of offensive dismissiveness. Sweet.
I definitely need to add a raised eyebrow smilie.
Oh Erin Goddess, please do!
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thyme
Shipmate
# 12360
|
Posted
Here’s something he (G K Chesterton) did say;
"When learned men begin to use their reason, then I generally discover that they haven't got any." - ILN 11-7-08
http://chesterton.org/acs/quotes.htm
--------------------
The Church in its own bubble has become, at best the guardian of the value system of the nation’s grandparents, and at worst a den of religious anoraks defined by defensiveness, esoteric logic and discrimination. Bishop of Buckingham's blog
Posts: 600 | From: Cloud Cuckoo Land | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thyme:
Here’s something he (G K Chesterton) did say;
"When learned men begin to use their reason, then I generally discover that they haven't got any." - ILN 11-7-08
http://chesterton.org/acs/quotes.htm
You might also have quoted "believe the tale not the teller." which is usually attributed to D.H.Lawrence
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilfried
Shipmate
# 12277
|
Posted
I'm a Bible-believing Episcopalian. How's that for a mystery?
Posts: 429 | From: Lefty on the Right Coast | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
Not sure that you're a mystery, just an endangered species!
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A bunch of offensive dismissers gets offensively dismissed by their idol of offensive dismissiveness. Sweet.
I definitely need to add a raised eyebrow smilie.
The biggest mistake I see here? Josh Timonen did not let people bitch about the decision. That's just what you do. We've fucked up once or twice here, as well as had decisions that were made and implemented in a matter of days, so I totally understand the "shut up and deal" thought process. But the more you try to control it, the worse it gets. So you, as the one in charge, suck it up. That doesn't seem to be the case.
You're absolutely right. It's like a pressure cooker - if you don't let it blow off steam, it explodes in your face and destroys the kitchen. You do a good job here of letting us steam away like crazy till we've all cooled down.
Maybe he thought they were all so rational they didn't need to get upset?
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I was intrigued by the Forum Users Agreement[....]
Thanks for that link.
I read it; well, tried to read it; well, ended up skimming...
Very early on, my first thought was "Oh my, somebody had the legal team write this up; I wonder how much it cost?".
Quickly followed by the smug satisfaction of having been a shipmate as well as a moderator/host under the wonderfully succinct Ten Commandments here. Along with Hell, the Ten Commandments are another outstanding feature of the Ship. They aren't wordy or legalistic, they cut to the point, they're short. They don't provide a bunch of verbiage for the wannabe junior lawyers to argue with; they force people to discuss what exactly they mean by "don't be a jerk".
My favorite (and it should be in every Points of Order for every organization from the merest Daisy Girl Scouts troop to the Supreme Court of the USA and everywhere in between) is "don't easily offend; don't be easily offended".
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
