Trying to find the root of this

[natselrox]

Nora just posted this on Facebook. Apparently, Richard was under some amount of criticism regarding the forum in his website.

http://www.gavinorland.org/religion/the ... ns-forums/

http://www.reasonproject.org/forum/view ... 06/#182823

Maybe he thought this forum was doing more harm to the foundation than good?

[Rum]

Looked at the links (thanks for them). They have a point. It does depend on what people think the purpose of the forum was though. If it is for academic and intellectual exchange it should have said as much - and it clearly was not. If RD decided he wanted to transform it into that, then we are on to the method and the treatment of people deeply involved there..luckily not me any longer.

Anyway enough on this subject from me for a bit.

[SnowLeopard]

Without quality control, debates will gravitate downwards. Forum posters who evidently have very little life outside the forum – extremely prolific “contributors” who have chosen names such as “Half_Cut”, “Fallible” and “Im_With_Stupid” for themselves – can barge out more occasional posters who do have lives, by insisting on very low standards in their clique. Other posters, rude, coarse individuals, the “voluntarily unemployed” are also free to unload streams of f-words for no good reason except that they feel it makes them look clever – and they will find themselves in majority company.

:pissed:

[Rum]

Without quality control, debates will gravitate downwards. Forum posters who evidently have very little life outside the forum – extremely prolific “contributors” who have chosen names such as “Half_Cut”, “Fallible” and “Im_With_Stupid” for themselves – can barge out more occasional posters who do have lives, by insisting on very low standards in their clique. Other posters, rude, coarse individuals, the “voluntarily unemployed” are also free to unload streams of f-words for no good reason except that they feel it makes them look clever – and they will find themselves in majority company.

:pissed:

How dare they! That's Ratz' remit!

[Matt H]

Nora just posted this on Facebook. Apparently, Richard was under some amount of criticism regarding the forum in his website.

http://www.gavinorland.org/religion/the ... ns-forums/

http://www.reasonproject.org/forum/view ... 06/#182823

Maybe he thought this forum was doing more harm to the foundation than good?

Who the fuck is Gavin Orland?

As for the second, looks like a complaint from a fundie.

[eXcommunicate]

Nora just posted this on Facebook. Apparently, Richard was under some amount of criticism regarding the forum in his website.

http://www.gavinorland.org/religion/the ... ns-forums/

http://www.reasonproject.org/forum/view ... 06/#182823

Maybe he thought this forum was doing more harm to the foundation than good?

The first "criticism" is prudish nonsense. He feels an RD forum should be strictly "academic." The 2nd "criticism" is apparently from a religionist (judging by subsequent responses).

The Politics forum, while unruly, was chocked full of interesting debate and discussion on a variety of subjects. Why should RD fans limit themselves to only scientific debate? Surely the subject of "reason" should touch upon Politics as well, yes?

[natselrox]

Nora just posted this on Facebook. Apparently, Richard was under some amount of criticism regarding the forum in his website.

http://www.gavinorland.org/religion/the ... ns-forums/

http://www.reasonproject.org/forum/view ... 06/#182823

Maybe he thought this forum was doing more harm to the foundation than good?

Who the fuck is Gavin Orland?

As for the second, looks like a complaint from a fundie.

His site has the caption, "No religion doesn't mean no values. On the contrary." Unlikely for a fundie.

[NineBerry]

http://www.gavinorland.org/religion/the ... ns-forums/

Oh how consistent. Going on about "too much political correctness" but wrinkling their nose over "vulgar" content.

[Mysturji]

It's the internet FFS!
He's complaining about bad language?
Did he even notice that the thread he objected to was started by a subsequently banned troll?
No mention of th "no ad-hom" rule though, which is much more rational than "no potty mouth".
Fucking prude.

[Matt H]

Nora just posted this on Facebook. Apparently, Richard was under some amount of criticism regarding the forum in his website.

http://www.gavinorland.org/religion/the ... ns-forums/

http://www.reasonproject.org/forum/view ... 06/#182823

Maybe he thought this forum was doing more harm to the foundation than good?

Who the fuck is Gavin Orland?

As for the second, looks like a complaint from a fundie.

His site has the caption, "No religion doesn't mean no values. On the contrary." Unlikely for a fundie.

I said that about the second guy, not Orland.

[Kristie]

My hubby, who's never been on any of these forums and doens't even label himself as atheist but is one, said that whenever he hears anything about Richard Dawkins and his foundation, it's talked about like a god hating cult. That's not good PR.

[DoctorE]

They see us rollin, they hatin!

[Valden]

Nora just posted this on Facebook. Apparently, Richard was under some amount of criticism regarding the forum in his website.

http://www.gavinorland.org/religion/the ... ns-forums/

Oh look, a Fluffy!

[Ayaan]

There is a history of people who got banned (or even just suspended) from RDF for bad behavior to run off to their blog or another forum and start bad-mouthing the forum.

Edit: Not to say that there weren't time when things were handled badly because there were. But you do get people who's biggest and best contribution to the forum was to call fellow posters blind idiots - they get banned and then go off whining about how badly they were treated with no mention of their own behavior.

[klr]

There is a history of people who got banned (or even just suspended) from RDF for bad behavior to run off to their blog or another forum and start bad-mouthing the forum.

Beat me to it.