Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Erin:

quote:

---

(and just wtf is up with you and analogies, anyway? Can't you ever just discuss something straight up?)

---

Analogies are helpfully fuzzy and come preloaded with spin.

---

A bullseye!

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarah G:
The new ex-RD website mentioned earlier in this thread has it's own thread talking about the SoF response.

Here.

---

Ummh. The most interesting thing about that thread is that (up until to the very last post) everyone assumes that the Ship is an Anglican board.

ITTWAAWS?

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

PS: if they call me an Anglican, should I get indignant, or just let it go? Should they be making such unwarranted assumptions? I mean, aren't they evidence-based reasoning machines?

---

Is Outrage

--------------------
Gaero?.......Gaero!

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
There's a very good article on the main magazine of the Ship at the moment, dealing with the wider picture of why the Dawkins forum (and similar sites) run into difficulty. I'd recommend a read if you haven't already.

I seem to remember something similar happening with the REjesus site which Bruce had to close down. With the best will in the world, Internet forums don't always go the way their owners would like them to. Just as well we have a resident alligator to eat anyone who threatens the future.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
No, because shutting everything down and deleting posts and members like he did were the acts of burning the village and salting the earth, which I already said was the biggest problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
just wtf is up with you and analogies, anyway? Can't you ever just discuss something straight up?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:
There is now an apology by Richard Dawkins.

---

Interesting: the moderation of the new site apparently extends only to pre-approval of threads (but not comments).

Is this that different from the way we do it? Of course, anyone can post a thread, but if it's inappropriate for the board it will be moved or closed. I think our system's better (of course ) because of the instant gratification factor of starting something and seeing it appear immediately, but it now looks like the forum's been re-factored rather than being transformed into a police state or something.

I do think it's interesting that, in all of this, there seems to have been an inability (or lack of desire) to learn from the successes or failures of other forums that have confronted these problems before. I suppose the admission that they have things to learn about human nature might be too galling to admit? They seem to be falling back on the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, but I think "blame the Internet" is a bit like "shoot the messenger" here. It's just a bunch of tubes...

- Chris.

--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Did I miss something?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Did I miss something?

---

So much more than you will ever comprehend.

1. I do not agree with their initial decision to turn their forums into blog-type discussions, with the initial submissions requiring approval. If that were proposed here I'd fight it to the bitter end. However, it is within their rights to do so and I do not believe that it heralded the end of the world.

2. Instead of announcing it and letting people blow off steam about it, they announced it, got some flak and promptly shut everything down to prevent them from having their say. That is the part that I would consider "burning down the village and salting the earth", NOT the initial decision by Richard, Josh, et. al.

In my opinion, 2 is a far greater sin than 1.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:
There is now an apology by Richard Dawkins.

---

Interesting: the moderation of the new site apparently extends only to pre-approval of threads (but not comments).

Is this that different from the way we do it? Of course, anyone can post a thread, but if it's inappropriate for the board it will be moved or closed. I think our system's better (of course ) because of the instant gratification factor of starting something and seeing it appear immediately, but it now looks like the forum's been re-factored rather than being transformed into a police state or something.

- Chris.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I suspect RD wants the forum to discuss only serious matters, such as befit a rationalist board. He doesn't want chit-chat about personal matters, or games, or other light-hearted pursuits.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
That is the part that I would consider "burning down the village and salting the earth", NOT the initial decision by Richard, Josh, et. al.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stowaway John:

quote:

---

I suspect RD wants the forum to discuss only serious matters, such as befit a rationalist board. He doesn't want chit-chat about personal matters, or games, or other light-hearted pursuits.

---

Well I would question that as a motive Moth because I don't find Dawkins to be that rational. Are phrases from his own lips like 'Religious education is a form of child abuse' and catholicism and anglicanism are 'a virus' the language of serious debate or the words of a propagandist?

My guess is that he wants a clear out of the 'geek' / 'too much time on their hands' element from his website. Is it me or does this have echoes of a kind of night of the long knives? The guy has lost credibility in intellectual circles due to the thug/bully element he's attracted.

People should analyse HIS rhetoric a little more closely. He's a man with a hatred of God, religion and religious types. He wants to see the annihilation of religion so there can be another experiment with a secular utopia. Presumably with him as one of the big players.

Let's call it 'the Dawkins Delusion'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
But I think forums, by their participatory structure, invite members to think that what is important is them, not the legal owner. I think this is the reason why members put so much effort and time into them for free. So when the legal owner toys around with the forums, he is basically destroying the very illusion that made the success of the forums possible in the first place. I think what is wrong about all this is not that the members let themselves be fooled, but rather that legally they are operating under an illusion. I think the members are right in their feelings here, and the law is wrong (at least to some debatable extent). Basically, if someone fosters a community of people for his own purposes, then at some stage that community gathers some rights of its own, quite apart from those purposes.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stowaway John:
dawkins seems shocked that his 'stirring up strife in people's minds and between communities has come home to roost.

Just a couple of his choice moments of tolerance and understanding...'religious education is a form of child abuse'. Catholicism and Anglicanism are 'a virus'.
Goebells would approve.

Why can't people see through him?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
... As for the post, I’d be amazed if someone dared post anything under Dawkins name without his prior knowledge and approval....

Tubbs

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
... As for the post, I’d be amazed if someone dared post anything under Dawkins name without his prior knowledge and approval....

Tubbs

---

Does anybody else not see the reference to pseudopigraphy in all this and the Pauline writings?

If its rational for somebody in and around 90AD to take Paul's name when writing 2 Thessalonians, how come its not rational for somebody to do this for Dawkins? It seems our sense of ownership of our own voice is a lot less nuanced then it used to be.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
But, its interesting how many of us on here, including myself, who believe some of the Pauline letters are pseudopigraphical get somewhat perturbed about people taking our own voices over.

That's a strange intellectual juxtaposition.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
If Simon were to wake up tomorrow and say, "you know what? Fuck this shit" he would be under no obligation -- legally, ethically or morally -- to continue to host this forum. The community is welcome to carry on, they just get to do it on their own dime from that point forward.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
But, its interesting how many of us on here, including myself, who believe some of the Pauline letters are pseudopigraphical get somewhat perturbed about people taking our own voices over.

That's a strange intellectual juxtaposition.

---

You mean I should feel the same on Paul's behalf that I feel on mine? Why?

---

Oh, I don't know...intellectual purity.

I see your point about self though.

But, as for our thoughts on others, those who mock Dawkins for maybe having people write stuff for him may want to ask if there isn't something a tad hypocritical about this point.

We accept that biblical pieces that enlighten and indicate Christianity may not be written by the suppossed writer but that for somebody in modern times to do the same thing is intellectual hypocrisy?

That's a bit different, don't ya think?

--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
However, I think sufficient prior warning would be due, so that in fact the community has a fair chance to organize itself in order to take over. And then there would have to be enough cooperation from the original owner to actually make it possible in a practical sense (handing over passwords or whatever).

---

Which is why I think shutting everything down because he got his delicate baby feelings hurt was the bigger problem. They gave 30 days' notice -- not exceptionally generous, but at least some notice. He should have manned the hell up, taken what was coming, and let the community use the forum as a staging area for their next move. It cracks me the hell up that Dawkins took offense to someone calling Josh a suppurating whatever -- here, that would have earned a shitload of .

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Less nuanced? Or more concrete? Frankly when it comes to someone speaking in my name, f*** nuance.

---

Og, even if Paul didn't write all the letters and some were written on his behalf and using his name, I'd assume that this was done with Paul's knowledge and permission. Paul appeared to have quite a temper. Someone putting his name on something he didn't approve of would be likely to feel the full force of it.

Tubbs

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
It cracks me the hell up that Dawkins took offense to someone calling Josh a suppurating whatever -- here, that would have earned a shitload of .

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by 3rdFooter:
I am just trying to get my head around the concept of bells-n-smells atheism.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

posted by Matt Wardman 2000 [snip] Non-Believers Giving Aid launch, where they didn’t have the UK tax setup properly supported until several days after they launched. [snip]
Matt [/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phos Hilaron:

quote:

---

posted by Matt Wardman 2000 [snip] Non-Believers Giving Aid launch, where they didn’t have the UK tax setup properly supported until several days after they launched. [snip]
Matt

---

Wow, what a weird site. Where did RD get the idea that you have to be religious to be good from? There are dozens of secular charities out there sending aid to Haiti. [/QB]

---