Comments on: An “Open Letter to Richard Dawkins” revised https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/02/27/an-open-letter-to-richard-dawk/ Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:14:15 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.8 By: Observer https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/02/27/an-open-letter-to-richard-dawk/#comment-515425 Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:14:15 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/02/27/an-open-letter-to-richard-dawk/#comment-515425 ***Staff were told that the science and reason forum content would be migrated to the new site and we offered to help with this.***

This would have been great, there is a lot of interesting discussion on the site.

]]> By: Stephanie Z https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/02/27/an-open-letter-to-richard-dawk/#comment-515424 Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:56:03 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/02/27/an-open-letter-to-richard-dawk/#comment-515424 Yes, Pierce. I’m very defensive of my time, and you’re wasting it.

]]> By: Pierce R. Butler https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/02/27/an-open-letter-to-richard-dawk/#comment-515423 Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:43:59 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/02/27/an-open-letter-to-richard-dawk/#comment-515423 Swami @ # 45 – Thanks for making my point for me so succinctly.

Stephanie Z @ # 47: … someone who thinks I’ll be dishonest just for the fun of it…

What an amazingly defensive reaction to a simple suggestion that, consciously or otherwise, the terms of the discussion were being quietly altered. Oh well.

]]> By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/02/27/an-open-letter-to-richard-dawk/#comment-515422 Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:19:19 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/02/27/an-open-letter-to-richard-dawk/#comment-515422 PZ: Sorry to be annoying. My intent was not to annoy you. The original meaningof the term “Blastula” was clear and explicit. It was meant to refer to the body of interent commenters who share certain characteristics such as: Atheism, an interest in promoting secular, rational, and skeptical issues and discussions, and on-line activism. I chose the term “Blastula” in honor of, and to honor, Pharyngula (and because I thought it was funny), but it was meant to refer to similar blog readers/commenters on my site, on Dawkins site, on IIBB, and so on.

The context in which that term was used also included a mild critique of us (us “blastulas”) and a number of individuals took exception to that critique, apparently never having had their modus operendus questioned before, and went on the warpath. The conversation never progressed beyond a giant blame-game orgy that itself amply demonstrated that the critique I had proposed was not only pretty close to true, but that the situation was for some worse than I ever thought possible.

During that process, the meaning of “Blastula” became corrupted and misused, and it became part of the “Greg Laden Runs a Train Wreck Blog and is Ruinging the Internet for Everyone” trope.

Ironically, but perhaps expectedly, the commenters who never understood the meaning of “blastula” and when I re-explained it to them chose to call me a liar and a cheater and a mommy fucker are all your readers. (Not all of your readers, just a subset.)

So, PZ I would be annoyed as well if I were you, but you’ve contacted the wrong person about it.

]]> By: Goldenmane https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/02/27/an-open-letter-to-richard-dawk/#comment-515421 Mon, 01 Mar 2010 08:54:43 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/02/27/an-open-letter-to-richard-dawk/#comment-515421 NewEnglandBob @16:
“I visited the new ‘replacement’ forum at rationalskepticism.org.

What a bunch of loonies!

Some of them are hater creationist (proud that their prayers brought down the forums) and others are just plain crazy. A scan of several of the threads nearly made me puke. RD.net is well rid of those people. ”

Blatant fucking idiotic lies.

I only bother to point this out because some poor bastards might think your comments were anything other than dumbarse trolling, and I don’t like to allow people to embarrass themselves by falling for idiotic bullshit.

Carry on.

]]> By: Swami https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/02/27/an-open-letter-to-richard-dawk/#comment-515420 Mon, 01 Mar 2010 04:16:19 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/02/27/an-open-letter-to-richard-dawk/#comment-515420 Not at all, Stephanie. I wasn’t taking sides one way or the other. I was reading through the thread and got a good laugh. I thought it was funny. That’s all. You carry on.

]]> By: Stephanie Z https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/02/27/an-open-letter-to-richard-dawk/#comment-515419 Mon, 01 Mar 2010 01:07:41 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/02/27/an-open-letter-to-richard-dawk/#comment-515419 Swami, are you trying to suggest that there is a point in trying to have a discussion with someone who thinks I’ll be dishonest just for the fun of it? If so, do please let me know what it is.

]]> By: PZ Myers https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/02/27/an-open-letter-to-richard-dawk/#comment-515418 Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:53:30 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/02/27/an-open-letter-to-richard-dawk/#comment-515418 These weird comments about “Blastulistas” are kind of annoying, since they’re supposedly not about me or my site, but the name leads everyone to think you’re talking about me. Or maybe you are.

How about talking about Ladenistas instead? Or Isisites? Or Physioprofiloids? Or just come clean and call them Pharyngulites. I’m a big boy, I can take it, and so can they.

]]> By: Swami https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/02/27/an-open-letter-to-richard-dawk/#comment-515417 Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:36:32 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/02/27/an-open-letter-to-richard-dawk/#comment-515417 Pierce@#19: â??So far Stephanie Z has been reasonable and coherent in her comments, so I hope to continue the dialog – even if we never reach agreement.â?

Stephanie@#44 (to Pierce): â??Then go fuck yourself.â?

Priceless!

]]> By: Stephanie Z https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/02/27/an-open-letter-to-richard-dawk/#comment-515416 Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:28:09 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/02/27/an-open-letter-to-richard-dawk/#comment-515416 Enoch, I think you may well have a point. However, I also didn’t think we were arguing so much as discussing, a notion of which Pierce has disabused me with his “goalposts” comment.

Pierce, if you prefer to have my prior statement end with “is generally not paid for with the ability to make personnel decisions,” feel free. Then go fuck yourself. There’s no point in my communicating any further with someone who accuses me of intellectual dishonesty that doesn’t change anything in my meaning.

]]>