The man widely blamed for dismantling and destroying the very popular Richard Dawkins Forum (and lying his way through the process), Josh Timonen, is alleged to have defrauded Dawkins out of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/22/31283.htm
It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
Dawkins was very supportive of Timonen when the forum imploded and defended him against the wrath of the membership.
A thread was started about this at 6pm yesterday on the Rational Skepticism forum which was set up when the RD Forum folded. It already has nearly 700 posts.
No doubt the loonies will try to make something religious out of this: God's punishment, or somesuch bollox.
But I do find it quite amusing. Dawkins savaged his own reputation with his hardcore fans by defending this bloke who was ripping him off!
I for one shall not be gloating at any problems Richard Dawkins may be facing.
I suggest that while RD had no reson to suspect Timonen of any wrongdoing, and while he felt justifdied in making what may have turned out to be bad changes to the forum, RD had no reason not to support Timonen.
Now, if he has evidence that Timinen was on the make, and perhaps acting in his own self interest as opposed to that of the RDF, I expect RD will change his stance. If I recall rightly, he had agreed to some modifications to the forum changes at some stage anyway. I think that demonstrates a scientific like willingness to adjust your position based on weight of evidence.
I am never sure why Dawkins gets vilified. One may question his tone at times, but when one examines the record, most of his public appearances are characterised by generally gentlemanly behaviour. Who can blame him when he regularly comes up in debate with people wholly incapable of sustaining any coherent argument or justification for their beliefs.
Also, one may question his evidence, or his arguments e.g. claiming that religion can be worse for children then some level of sexual abuse. However, surely he stands as a hero of the rational movement? Surely he has agitated and worked hard to spread the good word?
I think it is entirely fair to attempt to diseect and critique Dawkins on any aspect of his work. But to seek to make a case against him because of his former support for an employee is definitely not worthy of debate unless he is shown conclusively to have acted improperly himself. Otherwise, surely he is allowed his misjudgments just as we all should be. No doubt he will learn valuable lessons from the experience, and it does not require the chatterati to make a mountain out of a mole hill, and possibly distract Dawks from more valuable work advancing the great cause.
IMHO
Just for the record I wasn't gloating.
Just for record sorry. Was not suggesting you were. Just that it smelt like an opportunity for RG slaggers to have their day, and I was having a bit of an offload on my views of that type of behaviour. Cheers Chaggle. No offence intended.Originally Posted by chaggle
Yes, I was similarly not "gloating". I never posted on the old Dawkins forum so have no particluar axe to grind on that one, I just find it amusing that RD alienated so many of his most loyal supporters in defence of someone who now seems to have been at least as bad as all those forum users were saying. It created an enormous amount of ill-will amongst his hardcore fans and now it looks like he owes a lot of people apologies. He can't say that he wasn't warned about Timonen. He has given his enemies ammunition that they will use regardless of the irrelevance it has to his position on science and religion.
As for why he gets vilified, that's easy: The truth hurts. Religionists are always accusing him of being "hateful" and similar; when nothing could be further from the truth. Dawkins is usually kind and caring in the way that he delivers his message. But that message is a massive slap in the face to people who want to believe nonsense. As long as what he says is honest and logical, then religionists will be offended and object to his right to say it.
Is there a decent description (or two) of the events of the implosion out there somewhere?
This was written at the time.
I don't know of its accuracy or objectivity (objectiveness?)
I guess it's fair to say that on the internet there are a lot of people around who think they have a right to say what they like wherever they like, and who will whine like mad, (and often get quite unpleasant, even if they are normally polite) when anyone tries to stop them or change things.
Given that general fact, it's probably not too hard for someone administering a forum on behalf of someone else to inaccurately portray any opposition to changes as being largely down to the obsessive or self-entitled fringe and stand a fair chance of being believed.
Also, it's often the case that people who abuse other people's trust are fairly good at appearing trustworthy, whether that's down to deliberate deception, or people appearing plausible because they're good at self-deception, convincing themselves they have a right to other people's stuff and therefore not actually feeling any guilt about what they're doing.
Sounds too much like Stephen Colbert's word "truthiness". Used to describe something that sounds true regardless of whether it actually is or not. "Sarah Palin's speech had a lot of truthiness."
When this all exploded I thought it was a mountain/molehill situation. Forum users do get silly about these things, think that posting daily on their forum is the most important thing in the world, that they own the forum, etc. But now reading what Peter Harrison said about Timonen back in February it makes me think "D'oh, Dawkins really should have listened to both sides back then."
Thanks.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks