http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2010/02/richard-dawkins-unleashes-tirade-against-fans.html
QuoteRichard Dawkins has something of a reputation for provoking the religious community, but it seems he may have underestimated the atheistic fervour of his own fanbase. Amidst a tsunami of vulgar and vitriolic comments, the 85,000-strong forum on his official website RichardDawkins.net had to be shut down this week.
The implosion appears to have been provoked by an announcement on the website that discussion threads and responses would in future be tightly moderated to help curb irrelevant discussions, frivolous gossip and abuse.
However, the announcement itself created such an explosion of ire that the planned 30-day switch-over period had to be scrapped and the discussion forum locked down immediately. Some members are complaining that their profiles have been wiped out and others have lost access to files and messages that they uploaded onto the website. Not willing to be silenced, many of the former Dawkins fans are continuing to vent their feelings on atheist forums elsewhere on the net.
Chris Wilkins, who has blogged about the row, told me yesterday that one of his acquaintances described the closing of the forum as "feeling like a friend had died".
Dawkins himself is less than sympathetic. In a personal message posted today entitled Outrage, he lets rip at the members of his website:
QuoteImagine 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 [...] that somebody on 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.
(You will also have to imagine the uncensored version of this extract)
He goes on to ponder what could possible be wrong with people who "over-react so spectacularly to something so trivial" and concludes that "there is something rotten in internet culture" and that he is determined to purge his website of this vicious element. And so the battle commences...
They're all just mad that they don't have a higher power to complain to.
Mother. Fucking. LOL!
Internets 1
Dawkins 0
I found Dawkins' original post from the quote above - http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=110356 (http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=110356)
QuoteSuppose 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.”
:lol:
Wowwwww. :eek:
It's his site and he can do with it as he pleases, but the following quote is rather bullshit if you are interested in free exchange of ideas:
QuoteThe new discussion area will not be a new forum. It will be different. We will be using a system of tags to categorize items, instead of sub-forums. Discussions can have multiple tags, such as "Education", "Children", and "Critical Thinking". Starting a new discussion will require approval, so we ask that you only submit new discussions that are truly relevant to reason and science. Subsequent responses on the thread will not need approval—however anything off topic or violating the new terms of service will be removed. The approval process will be there to ensure the quality of posts on the site. This is purely an editorial exercise to help new visitors find quality content quickly. We hope this discussion area will reflect the foundation's goals and values.
This entire implosion was caused when Dawkins' fans realized that he was composed mainly of feces.
QuoteThe new discussion area will not be a new forum. It will be different. We will be using a system of tags to categorize items, instead of sub-forums. Discussions can have multiple tags, such as "Education", "Children", and "Critical Thinking". Starting a new discussion will require approval, so we ask that you only submit new discussions that are truly relevant to reason and science. Subsequent responses on the thread will not need approval—however anything off topic or violating the new terms of service will be removed.
So it's going to be a bit like Slashdot, right?
QuoteThe approval process will be there to ensure the quality of posts on the site.
So it's going to be a bit like Slashdot ...right?
QuoteThis is purely an editorial exercise to help new visitors find quality content quickly.
So it's going to be a bit like Slashdot, right?!
interesting. It's funny, because Dawkins GOT that notoriety because of the emotional resonance his rational argument has. He's been pissing off theists for decades now, and he's finally got himiself an internet army. Being gnashed and bleated at is the price of fame. But I can see that he doesn't want that on his own site.
This "internet forum thing" isn't going to last forever. It's already being phased out in favor of more fluid forms of many-to-many communication. Being able to filter out trolling is something that'll be selected in, naturally, as software develops.
You should read the "Articles of Faith" section. It goes in slightly more detail. That and I find it personally funny that she uses this as "proof" that God exists. :P
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2010/02/richard-dawkins-offended-by-atheists.html
More ammunition for the Xtians... great. :roll:
Just keeps getting funnier!
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
At first I was like :lulz:
then I was like :sad:
And then I was like :lulz:
I LOL'D, HARD.
Athiests. Forums. Teh funnay could be potentially legendary.
seems to be a LOT more drama involved, I came across this link on the xkcd forums:
http://realityismyreligion.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/locked-entry-will-open-soon/
apparently, in short, there's two groups involved. the server admins of the RD site, who care only about the RD foundation, are in contact with RD himself and manage the articles on the site or something and could give a shit about the forum. and then there's the moderators of the forum, who are volunteers and tried their best to moderate the huge community (which we know takes many hours of time), but like PD, the forum software started to get slower under the weight of the posts, and this could only be solved from the server admin's side. they told the mods they would involve them in finding a solution. but instead, the mods were kept out of the loop completely for a length of time, until finally they were simply told they weren't needed anymore and the forum would be replaced with a kind of tagged guestbook discussion software, which would basically kill of the entire community because people couldnt even start new threads anymore. this, in your typical monkey behaviour, was communicated only to the mods, while the userbase got an entirely different message (implicating the mods themselves), so when the mods crossposted the admin message to the userbase, shit hit the fan, server admins started deleting mod accounts (including posts), the entire userbase was in shock, panicked and started exchanging contact info to relocate somewhere else, for some reason the server admins also didn't want this to happen and so they locked the whole thing down.
it's beautiful monkey behaviour :lulz:
Quote from: Jean-Lustine d'Hadamard on February 26, 2010, 12:26:00 PM
QuoteThe approval process will be there to ensure the quality of posts on the site.
QuoteThis is purely an editorial exercise to help new visitors find quality content quickly.
So it's going to be a bit like Slashdot, right?!
I think you're confused, They're after quality. Not a random mix of half truths and insane rants picked out by kdawson.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 27, 2010, 11:12:53 AM
Quote from: Jean-Lustine d'Hadamard on February 26, 2010, 12:26:00 PM
QuoteThe approval process will be there to ensure the quality of posts on the site.
QuoteThis is purely an editorial exercise to help new visitors find quality content quickly.
So it's going to be a bit like Slashdot, right?!
I think you're confused, They're after quality. Not a random mix of half truths and insane rants picked out by kdawson.
All mice an' men.
Um, I really would advise you guys to read that blog post, there's going to be no improvement of quality, because they killed the community and "fired" the volunteer mods. There's no way that the (two) people that managed to kill off a huge community and pull this stunt are going to be able to successfully design any approval process that would yield better quality than what the forum had.
Not that I know, cause I never went to the place, but from reading that blog post, this is really your typical power-hungry lying nazi admin intrige drama shit we have seen so often on our trolling missions. Except in this case, the mods seem to be the good guys on the side of the users and the server admins are the nazis, kind of like a 2-3 step hierarchy or something.
WOW, that was really something! I second the suggestion to read that blog post, because what went on there was an utter and amazing travesty. It's unclear how much Dawkins himself actually knew about what was going on. Even if you don't care about Dawkins or his forum, that blog post outlines in detail exactly what "doin it wrong" is all about when it comes to running a forum. The mods got screwed, the members got screwed, and possibly even Dawkins himself got screwed, all because one uninvolved website admin wanted to control everything.
Oooh, in addition it looks a bit like aforementioned admin may be looking to coattail on Richard Dawkins' fame by making his own name and opinions prominent on the new website. Very interesting! From everything I've read it sounds like Dawkins has been made a fool of by this admin, right down to being fed a line of bullshit including quote mining from OTHER forums for comments made after the closure and presenting them as reasons for the closure, and presenting insults that were directed at himself as if they were directed at Dawkins.
From the sounds of things Josh Timmons seems like a very unscrupulous man, and I hope Dawkins opens his eyes and deals with him as such. He may have singlehandedly made Dawkins the laughingstock of the Internet.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 27, 2010, 06:20:46 PMthat blog post outlines in detail exactly what "doin it wrong" is all about when it comes to running a forum.
it's really incredibly
typical isn't it?
like TCC multiplied by MW to the power of CoG or something.
at least it serves to demonstrate it doesn't matter FUCK ALL whether you believe in omnipotent hypotheticals or not,
everybody does the monkey-dance :)
Ahhh, sweet humanity. :)
I'm seeing the tension and fallout from this on several of the bigger sites. Athiests in general irritate me but Daw Kin are amoungst the worst.
Theres a thread I am going to link to tonight on SA that I have been following, its one of the athiest threads in lassais faire, watching people going apeshit when agnosticism is proposed to be a more logical line of thought is both agonizing and hilarous... furymirth?
I married a smug Atheist who, after failing to convince me to become an Atheist and mocking me for years, converted to Episcopalianism and then spent several more years trying to convert me to THAT. :(
Wow.
Yeah. I have a fairly strong aversion to both Atheists and Christians, including Satanists.
I would too, if that happened to me.
I'm totally cool with almost any religion, on the condition that the people I'm talking to are decent and respectful. Just a few weeks ago a mormon in my class took an interest in discussing whether the big bang ever happened, and all that noise, but he was civil about it and I showed him some evidence and he read it like a good chap, disagreed with it even though he had no rebuttal, which is fine by me. It came down to "why do you care what I believe?", and I told him "because you vote". But I was nice about it. :)
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 27, 2010, 09:45:04 PM
I'm totally cool with almost any religion, on the condition that the people I'm talking to are decent and respectful. Just a few weeks ago a mormon in my class took an interest in discussing whether the big bang ever happened, and all that noise, but he was civil about it and I showed him some evidence and he read it like a good chap, disagreed with it even though he had no rebuttal, which is fine by me. It came down to "why do you care what I believe?", and I told him "because you vote". But I was nice about it. :)
I had an interesting discussion with a classmate about whether or not the Great Flood (mating pairs for every animal inside and Ark, etc) was logistically possible. I asked what all these animals ate for over a year, and he replies with "Manna". I lol'ed, much to his annoyance.
But I was otherwise nice about it. I didn't even go into the whole one-single-mating-pair-cannot-repopulate-an-entire-species thing.
They can if God changes the rules for them.
I love wen people try to apply natural law to omnipotence. :lulz:
Douchebags. Gives the rest of the atheist community a bad name.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 27, 2010, 08:03:19 PM
I married a smug Atheist who, after failing to convince me to become an Atheist and mocking me for years, converted to Episcopalianism and then spent several more years trying to convert me to THAT. :(
What a turn around. And what a dick.
The funny thing is that he seems to be quite intelligent otherwise. He's a bit of a script kiddie/hacker, he took down the college's mail servers last year with a mail bomb.
His beliefs aren't internally consistent though... he believes in taking the Bible literally (Noah's Ark, plus he refers to evolution as "Darwinism"), yet he's never heard of the Ussher Chronology (Earth=6,000 years old).
Quote from: Demon Sheep on February 27, 2010, 10:20:14 PM
Douchebags. Gives the rest of the atheist community a bad name.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 27, 2010, 08:03:19 PM
I married a smug Atheist who, after failing to convince me to become an Atheist and mocking me for years, converted to Episcopalianism and then spent several more years trying to convert me to THAT. :(
What a turn around. And what a dick.
Yeah. He kind of takes pride in being a dick. He married me because I was "hardcore enough to handle him" but eventually he just got fat, boring, and lazy. I was all "WHERE'S YOUR PUNK ROCK, YOU SWEATPANTS-WEARING DIET-COKE GUZZLING BITCH?" and he was all "BAWWWWWW" and then we got a divorce.
From that guy I learned:
1. Cute punk rockers with pink hair can still grow up to be boring and/or annoying
2. You can't trust anyone who holds firm beliefs, because what they hold a firm belief in is subject to change at any time
3. If someone tells you that they are a dick, they are
4. If an underemployed guy has a dirty apartment, he's never gonna hold down a job OR clean the house.
I shall take those lessons to heart. And wtf, he sounds rather full of himself with the "hardcore enough to handle him" thing.
Quote from: Demon Sheep on February 27, 2010, 10:50:53 PM
I shall take those lessons to heart. And wtf, he sounds rather full of himself with the "hardcore enough to handle him" thing.
Ohhh yeah, totally. I was 23 and at the height of stupidity. I thought I was soooo experienced and world-wise! He was the 25-year-old, pink-haired, punk-rock editor of a local music paper, a band promoter with a local label, and totally Mr. Music Scene Knows Everybody. He had pristine skin because he thought tattoos and piercings were just
so mainstream, so
five minutes ago. I thought he was really cool.
:lulz:
There's nothing like marriage and having a couple kids to dissolve illusions, eh?
Oh, and when I met him he was all "I LIVE LIFE HARD BECAUSE I'M GOING TO DIE BEFORE I TURN 30"! He's diabetic. :x
He's going to be 41 this year, and he's physically a total wreck. When I hear kids say shit like that now, I want to show him to them as an object lesson. Luckily, he DID eventually grow up, remarried, and is expecting a kid with his second wife who is a lovely and very forbearing woman.
To bring it back sort of on-topic; never marry a devout atheist. 8)
by the way, this is the thread I was talking about http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3272105&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1
basically only calmbro's posts and whoever he is quoting is worth reading.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 28, 2010, 01:56:29 AM
Quote from: Demon Sheep on February 27, 2010, 10:50:53 PM
I shall take those lessons to heart. And wtf, he sounds rather full of himself with the "hardcore enough to handle him" thing.
Ohhh yeah, totally. I was 23 and at the height of stupidity. I thought I was soooo experienced and world-wise! He was the 25-year-old, pink-haired, punk-rock editor of a local music paper, a band promoter with a local label, and totally Mr. Music Scene Knows Everybody. He had pristine skin because he thought tattoos and piercings were just so mainstream, so five minutes ago. I thought he was really cool.
:lulz:
There's nothing like marriage and having a couple kids to dissolve illusions, eh?
Sounds like it. Jeez.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 28, 2010, 02:02:18 AM
To bring it back sort of on-topic; never marry a devout atheist. 8)
Ugh. Duly noted.
Quote from: Faust on February 28, 2010, 02:07:22 AM
by the way, this is the thread I was talking about http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3272105&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1
basically only calmbro's posts and whoever he is quoting is worth reading.
Shit I'm only on page 2 and I'm already LOLing in admiration at that Calmbro guy.