[1] You don't speak to the "common people" enough.
[2] No, I don't want to speak the Queen's English.
[3] For a militant atheist, you sure have thin skin.

Gawd wrote:[1] You don't speak to the "common people" enough.

Extremely valid criticism.

[2] No, I don't want to speak the Queen's English.

In the UK/USA Snobbery Wars, I wish to remain neutral. I see good things on all forms of English, and in other languages.

But here, one serious question please: can you please give links or so on to explain how Dawkins comes over on this particular aspect (Queen's English)? I wish to blog about this, and I have no idea what it is he is doing to make people angry on that aspect.

[3] For a militant atheist, you sure have thin skin.

True, and his thinking first before acting would have saved everyone a hell of a lot of grief, including him.

Gurdur wrote:here, one serious question please: can you please give links or so on to explain how Dawkins comes over on this particular aspect (Queen's English)? I wish to blog about this, and I have no idea what it is he is doing to make people angry on that aspect.

I think it may have to do with the fact that he speaks it? Dunno, his english always strikes me as very elegant oxford english - that alone might be enough to upset anyone outside of england (and I'm only partially joking here, I really think it has to do with the way he speaks)

Gawd wrote:[1] You don't speak to the "common people" enough.

Or to the theists enough. Or to the educated enough. In fact, you pretty much have no appeal wherever you go.

[2] No, I don't want to speak the Queen's English.

I do, but not with your nasal whine. Timbre is more important than accent in determining how much I don't hate you.

[3] For a militant atheist, you sure have thin skin.

And a rubber sword.

Gawd wrote:[1] You don't speak to the "common people" enough.
[2] No, I don't want to speak the Queen's English.
[3] For a militant atheist, you sure have thin skin.

Or to sum it up for those that know the issues...

He is a dick.

Simple. He is a dick, nothing wrong with that in its self and I don't mean that as a personal attack. However I would not give him the time of day and really couldn't care about him as a person but his arguments are valid.

All I am saying is, even if I could, I would not want to drink a beer with him and just to chill. Cause he is a dick and dicks kill my buzz so be off with you. He has shown me that twice with his handling of the Forum. He is not a pleasant person, unless of course you have a few Phd's and speaks Latin with a very nice upper class accent.

Gawd wrote:[1] You don't speak to the "common people" enough.
[2] No, I don't want to speak the Queen's English.
[3] For a militant atheist, you sure have thin skin.

I'll still buy his books, because I do enjoy them. I'm just not really that into the man himself anymore.

He's out of touch... at least when it comes to recognizing that minds making up an online community are no different (in spirit) than people at a cafe or any other meeting places. I just don't get how he can't see the importance open (but moderated) forums has on any movement.

Gurdur wrote:

[2] No, I don't want to speak the Queen's English.

In the UK/USA Snobbery Wars, I wish to remain neutral. I see good things on all forms of English, and in other languages.

But here, one serious question please: can you please give links or so on to explain how Dawkins comes over on this particular aspect (Queen's English)? I wish to blog about this, and I have no idea what it is he is doing to make people angry on that aspect.

Dawkins comes over as a snob because:
[1] He speaks with a hooty-tooty upper class accent.
[2] He never wears "simple clothing" like jeans and a t-shirt. Seriously, check out the images of Dawkins in Google: http://images.google.ca/images?um=1&hl= ... q=&start=0
[3] Dawkins always wears a suit or an Oxford boy type sweater.
[4] He doesn't show much emotion other than his "Outrage".
[5] I've never heard or read Dawkins swear.

I've never heard or read Dawkins swear.

Does this count?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyP44Xu5FA[/youtube]

Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle! I finally hear Dawkins say a swear word. But, it doesn't bode well for Dawkins' snotty quotient when people find it noteworthy to make a video of him saying "fuck off" as if that is so out of character for Dawkins'. Where was this Dawkins in "Outrage"?

I don't have any issues with Dawkins. He is a product of his background and education. Dawkins' background (including the accent and his upper class Britishness) is actually an asset when he takes on Amurrican creationists. It's hard for me to explain what I mean, but he can get away with stuff no American can. Americans like to think we are a classless society. This is not really so.

On the subject of the internet, there I believe Dawkins has issues. I don't think he has any understanding of internet communities, blogs, etc. He probably looks at his "forum" from a skewed academic point of view. I'm betting he relies on his techies to help him make decisions. This, as we know, is missing the point. The techinical aspects of running a blog are quite separate from the underlying understanding of what on on- line community is, how it functions, and why it's important.

Dawkins may understand the butterfly pinned to the board, the bird in the dissecting tray, but he doesn't see them fly. This "internet blindness" is not uncommon in people of his background. He is limited to seeing the internet as a way to send out top-down information. He thinks of it as a form of newspaper. Comments should be like letters to the editor, reviewed and approved. Believe it or not, many newspapers in the United States had problems understanding what it means to be part of the internet community. The New York Times (which is losing money fast) caught on far too late.

As long as Dawkins has his loyal band of techies advising him and cocooning him, he'll never get it. The yeast, the ferment of online communities is messy and uncontrollable. Kind of like the way the earth was when life originated. Fortunately for the spread of ideas, the internet is a big place. We will have to form our own warm pools, or if you like underwater vents to keep the movement evolving.

I almost feel sorry for Dawkins. He's going to become a coelacanth.

obscured by clouds wrote:

Gawd wrote:[1] You don't speak to the "common people" enough.
[2] No, I don't want to speak the Queen's English.
[3] For a militant atheist, you sure have thin skin.

Or to sum it up for those that know the issues...

He is a dick.

Outside of the current dispute over the forums, my only issue is that, while I personally rather enjoy seeing him bash religion again and again and again and again, his caustic approach simply isn't going to change anybody's mind. If anything, his approach will likely just make someone even more stubbornly adhere to what they already believe. He's basically preaching to the already converted. Again, I say that as someone who enjoys his bashing style and yet, on a practical level. think it changes hardly anyone's mind.

cateye wrote:Dunno, his english always strikes me as very elegant oxford english - that alone might be enough to upset anyone outside of england (and I'm only partially joking here, I really think it has to do with the way he speaks)

You mean the fact that one can actually understand every word when he lectures? Personally, I don't mind that (and surely I'm from outside of England ).

Berthold wrote:

cateye wrote:Dunno, his english always strikes me as very elegant oxford english - that alone might be enough to upset anyone outside of england (and I'm only partially joking here, I really think it has to do with the way he speaks)

You mean the fact that one can actually understand every word when he lectures? Personally, I don't mind that (and surely I'm from outside of England ).

Yes, but you're from austria. People from scotland or ireland might have a different take on that Also, imagine the uproar in Austria if the chancelor would speak with a very articulate Berlinian accent

I have to speak as I find and I found him to be a kind person. He sent me several supportive messages when I was an admin and also phoned me at home to offer support to me through something very difficult. That's why I believe his apology is sincere and I continue to wish him and the Foundation well.

Moonwatcher wrote:Outside of the current dispute over the forums, my only issue is that, while I personally rather enjoy seeing him bash religion again and again and again and again, his caustic approach simply isn't going to change anybody's mind. If anything, his approach will likely just make someone even more stubbornly adhere to what they already believe. He's basically preaching to the already converted. Again, I say that as someone who enjoys his bashing style and yet, on a practical level. think it changes hardly anyone's mind.

Really? Ever visited the Converts' Corner on his website?

cateye wrote:Also, imagine the uproar in Austria if the chancelor would speak with a very articulate Berlinian accent

Yeah; I suppose in your place they might drown him in stale beer.

Berthold wrote:

cateye wrote:Also, imagine the uproar in Austria if the chancelor would speak with a very articulate Berlinian accent

Yeah; I suppose in your place they might drown him in stale beer.

But... we don't have a chancelor, we're not even part of Germany!

I meant, analogously, of course, the prime minister.

Imp wrote:

Moonwatcher wrote:Outside of the current dispute over the forums, my only issue is that, while I personally rather enjoy seeing him bash religion again and again and again and again, his caustic approach simply isn't going to change anybody's mind. If anything, his approach will likely just make someone even more stubbornly adhere to what they already believe. He's basically preaching to the already converted. Again, I say that as someone who enjoys his bashing style and yet, on a practical level. think it changes hardly anyone's mind.

Really? Ever visited the Converts' Corner on his website?

I just did and Imp is right, it is the "already converted". Note where they all discuss how they thought thus and such. One says his book but even more so Harris and Hitchens helped make the final decision.

The devout person will definitely not get anything from his caustic approach as Imp said.

I've long held that we make heroes and saints too easily out of others when it is really ourselves who we should be thanking. I was the one who was looking for answers, looking for truth years ago. The books that I read after that just filled in the cracks.

The same is true for those who convert to religions. They are looking already and some people's books, or words are the catalyst maybe but not the reason.