The Schism of October 2008

[Tigger]

Play nice shall be the whole of the law

Well, that's good, because I'm always nice, as you'll discover!

RDF has a list of stuff you are not allowed to do or say as long as your arm

That's good to hear, although I can't say I was ever censured for anything on RDF except for ad homs. So no such proscriptions exist on Rationalia? A couple of people don't seem very happy talking about the Great Schism! Perhaps they're just being prudish and fact-phobic. (Joke!)

How long have you been a member at Rdnet? Were you there back in October 2008? Or have you heard some gossip and want to know more?

I'd like to know what your specific interest in this is, paddy_rice, because your demeanor is coming across as hostile.

As stated in the OP, I wasn't around in October 2008. And yes, you're exactly right: I heard some gossip and wanted to know more. Simple as that. Sorry if I come across as hostile, it all just seems like a storm in a teacup to me (notwithstanding the work a lot of people put in to RDF, which I realise was effectively chucked down the toilet upon the Great Schism).

But I'm still at a loss to understand your (and others') rather hostile reaction to the OP. Is it just because you thought the subject was ancient history? As an outsider, it's hard for me to understand why it's such a sore subject, that's all.

It seems like rather an odd "first post" to make, don'tcherthink?

[Don't Panic]

Play nice shall be the whole of the law

Well, that's good, because I'm always nice, as you'll discover!

RDF has a list of stuff you are not allowed to do or say as long as your arm

That's good to hear, although I can't say I was ever censured for anything on RDF except for ad homs. So no such proscriptions exist on Rationalia? A couple of people don't seem very happy talking about the Great Schism! Perhaps they're just being prudish and fact-phobic. (Joke!)

Ad-homs are against the rules here too, but we don't have the restrictions on certain topics of discussion that RD.net had.

How long have you been a member at Rdnet? Were you there back in October 2008? Or have you heard some gossip and want to know more?

I'd like to know what your specific interest in this is, paddy_rice, because your demeanor is coming across as hostile.

As stated in the OP, I wasn't around in October 2008. And yes, you're exactly right: I heard some gossip and wanted to know more. Simple as that. Sorry if I come across as hostile, it all just seems like a storm in a teacup to me (notwithstanding the work a lot of people put in to RDF, which I realise was effectively chucked down the toilet upon the Great Schism).

But I'm still at a loss to understand your (and others') rather hostile reaction to the OP. Is it just because you thought the subject was ancient history? As an outsider, it's hard for me to understand why it's such a sore subject, that's all.

It's not a sore subject, it's just that it's a long time ago and we've moved on.

[paddy_rice]

It seems like rather an odd "first post" to make, don'tcherthink?

It was something I never felt comfortable asking about on RDF, and I thought this would be the perfect place to start. Seriously, what is with all this suspicion?

[Mephistopheles]

But I'm still at a loss to understand your (and others') rather hostile reaction to the OP. Is it just because you thought the subject was ancient history? As an outsider, it's hard for me to understand why it's such a sore subject, that's all.

I'd imagine that it's similar to the reason why TAF would rather forget that time in their history. It's hard to look back on past conflicts without reassigning blame to those involved, and that's typically not something you want to do when the bridges are almost rebuilt.

Which is why I'm also totally fine being in the dark on some aspects of this, despite my curiosity.

[paddy_rice]

I'd imagine that it's similar to the reason why TAF would rather forget that time in their history. It's hard to look back on past conflicts without reassigning blame to those involved, and that's typically not something you don't want to do when the bridges are almost rebuilt.

Ah, I see! Everyone's friends again! Does that mean that some of those involved are on Rationalia, then? And isn't it fun to assign blame? Isn't it cathartic, as they say in American sitcoms? (After all, it leads to learning and growth!)

What's OBC doing these days?

Which is why I'm also totally fine being in the dark on some aspects of this, despite my curiosity.

Fair enough. So, should I not ask any more then? I love a bit of mischief, that's all!

[Don't Panic]

I'd imagine that it's similar to the reason why TAF would rather forget that time in their history. It's hard to look back on past conflicts without reassigning blame to those involved, and that's typically not something you don't want to do when the bridges are almost rebuilt.

Ah, I see! Everyone's friends again! Does that mean that some of those involved are on Rationalia, then? And isn't it fun to assign blame? Isn't it cathartic, as they say in American sitcoms? (After all, it leads to learning and growth!)

What's OBC doing these days?

Which is why I'm also totally fine being in the dark on some aspects of this, despite my curiosity.

Fair enough. So, should I not ask any more then? I love a bit of mischief, that's all!

Mischief:
1. Harm or evil caused by an agent or brought about by a particular cause.
2. One who causes mischief. In a milder sense, one who causes petty annoyances. mischief-maker.
3. Vexatious or annoying conduct.

[FBM]

This reminds me, aren't we about due for another schism? It's been well over a week now. If we don't keep practicing, we'll never get it right.

[paddy_rice]

Mischief:
1. Harm or evil caused by an agent or brought about by a particular cause.
2. One who causes mischief. In a milder sense, one who causes petty annoyances. mischief-maker.
3. Vexatious or annoying conduct.

A dictionary definition. Wow, that killed the mood.

[Don't Panic]

Mischief:
1. Harm or evil caused by an agent or brought about by a particular cause.
2. One who causes mischief. In a milder sense, one who causes petty annoyances. mischief-maker.
3. Vexatious or annoying conduct.

A dictionary definition. Wow, that killed the mood.

So give me your definition, you're the one who said they liked causing mischief.

[Thinking Aloud]

Ah, I see! Everyone's friends again! Does that mean that some of those involved are on Rationalia, then? And isn't it fun to assign blame? Isn't it cathartic, as they say in American sitcoms? (After all, it leads to learning and growth!)

Don't be surprised if people get defensive. A lot of folks got hurt in both the Oct 08 and Feb 09 dramas, and few want to reopen old wounds.

Many burned bridges were rebuilt, and much more water has passed under those bridges since then. If you want to read about what happened from the perspective of people here, the threads are all here in the forum. Go and look them up. Sure, there's dramaz aplenty, but they're all past history.

I imagine few people here and now would have much patience for dredging it all up again, though.

[Tigger]

I'd imagine that it's similar to the reason why TAF would rather forget that time in their history. It's hard to look back on past conflicts without reassigning blame to those involved, and that's typically not something you don't want to do when the bridges are almost rebuilt.

Ah, I see! Everyone's friends again! Does that mean that some of those involved are on Rationalia, then? And isn't it fun to assign blame? Isn't it cathartic, as they say in American sitcoms? (After all, it leads to learning and growth!)

What's OBC doing these days?

Which is why I'm also totally fine being in the dark on some aspects of this, despite my curiosity.

Fair enough. So, should I not ask any more then? I love a bit of mischief, that's all!

Ah, re your analogy to sitcoms. If you started watching one halfway through a series, naturally you’d want a bit of background information, which is fair enough, but you don’t need all the gristle and details in order to catch up very quickly. You don’t need background on characters that have left, say, because they rarely play an important part in current events, and then you can stay up to date with current, relevant proceedings rather than dwelling on past, possibly not as entertaining episodes. The Simpsons has got better with time, so have we.

Mischief:
1. Harm or evil caused by an agent or brought about by a particular cause.
2. One who causes mischief. In a milder sense, one who causes petty annoyances. mischief-maker.
3. Vexatious or annoying conduct.

A dictionary definition. Wow, that killed the mood.

The OP did that, maybe. Try looking around elsewhere here too: we're quite nice.

[Mephistopheles]

Ah, I see! Everyone's friends again!

They've certainly been making strides. New members like me with no history just try and love everyone.

Does that mean that some of those involved are on Rationalia, then? And isn't it fun to assign blame? Isn't it cathartic, as they say in American sitcoms? (After all, it leads to learning and growth!)

Possibly. I don't know enough, and even if I did know of whom could take blame over here, I'd completely ignore it as I would over at TAF. I think a year is long enough to say that what matters is the friendly people everyone is now, not however they fucked up in the past.

What's OBC doing these days?

Surviving. TAF membership has been steadily increasing but active membership is only about as high as Rats, perhaps a little lower after the RD split.

He's got a new social hub he's been working on. Supposed to be like an all-purpose network that you can link to all of your other social network accounts. And, as only ObC could imagine, there's an adult/dating aspect to it as well. From what he's shown us, the beta looks promising. There should be a few threads over at TAF about it if you're interested.

Fair enough. So, should I not ask any more then? I love a bit of mischief, that's all!

Idk, the extent to which we get to revisit old wounds is totally up to the survivors of that ordeal.

[charlou]

Ah, I see! Everyone's friends again! Does that mean that some of those involved are on Rationalia, then? And isn't it fun to assign blame? Isn't it cathartic, as they say in American sitcoms? (After all, it leads to learning and growth!)

What's OBC doing these days?

I suppose you'll deny sarcasm as well.

[NoDayJob]

I'd imagine that it's similar to the reason why TAF would rather forget that time in their history. It's hard to look back on past conflicts without reassigning blame to those involved, and that's typically not something you don't want to do when the bridges are almost rebuilt.

Ah, I see! Everyone's friends again! Does that mean that some of those involved are on Rationalia, then? And isn't it fun to assign blame? Isn't it cathartic, as they say in American sitcoms? (After all, it leads to learning and growth!)

What's OBC doing these days?

Which is why I'm also totally fine being in the dark on some aspects of this, despite my curiosity.

Fair enough. So, should I not ask any more then? I love a bit of mischief, that's all!

I mentioned the "troubles" around the "schism" when I first came here but I think I got away with it.

I was a member at RD.net at the time but IIRC there was a veterans only section and things seemed to go on, (plots were hatched?), that we ordinary members were not party to. All veterans lost their privileges afterwards but I'm not sure of anything really.
OBC is over at http://www.rationalskepticism.org/ where there are more mods and ex-mods from RDF than you can shake a stick at.

[lordpasternack]

I'm quoting pretty directly from LP. Isn't calling people sex-phobic and prudish...

You're not quoting directly. You're paraphrasing and taking liberties with that to twist the tone of what I said to suit yourself.

I didn't call any person or persons uptight, prudish, or sex-phobic - but rather commented that certain actions seemed so, or seemed evocative of such in my opinion.

If I say that I think that yellow cars are in my opinion incredibly poor taste - I don't necessarily imply that every person with a yellow car has terrible taste point blank. No sweeping generalisation, but rather a DISCRETE comment on a particular opinion on taste with respect to a particular incidence. Yes, based on disagreement - disagreement on the matter of whether yellow cars are tasteful...

As to this forum and its raison d'etre - it exists because the current community wants it and supports it and that's the bottom line. As to the saturation of sexy content - well have a look yourself and make some gauge!

As to the place sex/sexuality has in a 'rationalist' forum - the answer in fact is that it can have a very positive place, when a particular ethos is fostered. But just to humour your mindset - what place does frivolous off-topic discussion have on a 'rationalist' board, or indeed any board with a narrowish set agenda? Do you think off-topic sections should be done away with? I don't, and I view the informal discussion of sex/sexuality in much the light. I don't see it as meriting any more particular scrutiny before being brought on board, and I currently feel vindicated by the general ethos that goes here.