Somebody is RIGHT on the Internet!!!!11!!
...I would like to start by apologising for our handling of this situation. We have not communicated well with our forum volunteers and users (for example in my insensitive 'Outrage' post, which was written in the heat of the moment). In the process we have caused unintended hurt and offence, and I am very sorry about that. In a classic case of a vicious circle, some of the responses to our announcement also caused considerable hurt and distress to us, and in the atmosphere of heightened emotion that followed, some of our subsequent actions went too far. I hope you will understand the human impulses that led to this, and accept my apology for them. I take full personal responsibility....
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I admit up front that I'm going all paternalistic on the Dawkins Forum people, and Imma gonna let you finish your imminent self destruction and all, but first I wanted to use this moment in time as an object lesson in communication.
A letter was recently posted somewhere by the RDF forum staff to…
I'm not sure why I'm compelled to write about this, but I am. I think it's because past experiences in my life have showed some exact parallels with the kind of fake apology that he offered on TV the other day. And far too many people, at least far too many people I've known, can't distinguish…
It looks like someone over at BlogCritics is undertaking the task of reviewing each of the component blogs of ScienceBlogs. So far, he's not particularly impressed with anyone except Martin and, to a lesser extent, Afarensis. Although he makes a few good points in checking out the first five blogs…
I suppose you could, with some justification, accuse me of being a troll, given that my post "So I'm a Christian. Shoot me." generated an entirely predictable set of flames tearing me down for unscientific thinking, and for trying to claim that there is any kind of bias against the religious…
Glad to know my respect for RD is well placed.
Greg, the man is not a hero just because he realised just in time that his mate Timonen fucked stuff up and caused damage to RDF.
The apology is no more sincere of that that a politician who got caught screwing up.
Richard showed his contempt for the masses, but someone told him, "But Richard, this could cost your Foundation MONEY!", and he coughed up the apology.
Who cares? Seriously? Some people need to get a life.
Greg is right. To stop an argument on the Internet someone has to be extraordinarily gracious, and Richard Dawkins was that someone. He sounds nothing like the politicians and preachers who cough up weasel-worded or mealy-mouthed "not-pologies".
If 'Outrage' was written in the heat of the moment, then Richard Dawkins must be a very measured man indeed.
I have to agree with Monado; this was a very gracious apology that conceded his mistakes while still holding firm on his objectives.
Though in the end, I think IanW is right. People care about all this just a little too much.
But nothing has been resolved, the site is still a mess, the Foundation is still a mess, the New Atheism is still a mess, etc etc etc. Dawkin's isn't cut out to be the Pope of Atheism.
The site has failed to do what it was created for as stated in "God Delusion" and should therefore be dismantled.
Aww, the pointless blog drama has been resolved before I got to run in and throw gas on the train wreck.
Oh well, there will be more drama somewhere eventually. Such is the nature of the 'tubes.