1. Comment #25060 by ketandev on March 10, 2007 at 12:56 am

Richard,

Why are YOU apologizing for a setup stunt that the "hired publicity machine" executed?
You were set up! You didn't do it intentionally, and therefore you need not apologize for something you never intended. - no matter how it came to made you look in public. The fault is not yours.

Shouldn't it be the "hired publicity machine" that ought to apologize?

Other Comments by ketandev

2. Comment #25062 by Grandt on March 10, 2007 at 1:13 am

#25060 by ketandev; Those "hired publicity machines" live and breathe for a singular goal, and rarely care for the truth, should it become a casualty.

Kudos to Richard for going public and explain this with an apology :-)

Other Comments by Grandt

3. Comment #25066 by -TheCodeCrack- on March 10, 2007 at 1:44 am

God theres some wanksticks in this world. My vulgarity is appropriate as a way of showing that I can feel your frustration in such situations.

Setting you up, yeah, we'll the've be found out for doing such.

But the hired 'publicity machine' in question, is just doing there job, that job seemingly being one that sets people up, takes people out of context, to make you appear 'mounting a personal attack on your fellow competition who is your rival for the literary prize', so a real decent bunch of people they must be, who can do stuff like that to others.

Other Comments by -TheCodeCrack-

4. Comment #25068 by Vadjong on March 10, 2007 at 2:02 am

Why apologize at all !?
If you make a comment in general, it is always going to be personal to all commented-upons. Saying: 'Sorry, it was not personal' is like saying 'Don't mind what I said, it was just soundwaves in warmed-up air.' Say instead: 'I'm not offending you personnally, just this crazy idea that has taken root in your head. I hope to have helped you reconsider.' Says I.

Other Comments by Vadjong

5. Comment #25070 by Richard Morgan on March 10, 2007 at 2:09 am

What are the evolutionary advantages for a journalist, or a species of journalists, to behave in such a way?
The answer is in one of Richard's favourite expressions : that's how he earns his living!

It is clear that your apology is more than just an apology, it's what your life's work is about - giving the truth its rightful place.


Other Comments by Richard Morgan

6. Comment #25073 by davyB on March 10, 2007 at 2:45 am

The word "apology" just means setting the record straight. It may contain an element of regret; it may not. It should be sincerely contrite only if contrition is warranted. One of the dictionary definitions is "a formal justification or defense." Another is "an explanation or excuse."

Why apologize? Because that is what honorable men do. Dr. Dawkins left his guard down for a moment and allowed an unscrupulous person to create a controversy. Now he has set the record straight.

Next subject.

Other Comments by davyB

7. Comment #25074 by Feuerbach on March 10, 2007 at 2:54 am

Kudos, Richard. Spoken like a true utilitarian.

Other Comments by Feuerbach

8. Comment #25084 by GhostPool on March 10, 2007 at 3:24 am

I read you're "comment" in the paper and didn't necessarily disagree with it, but thought it came across slightly rude, shall we say. I had a feeling it was taken out of context. I'm glad to hear you confirm this, and apologize as well, even though you really didn't have to!

Other Comments by GhostPool

9. Comment #25087 by stephenray on March 10, 2007 at 3:57 am

To do list:

Keep an eye out for Jeevan Vasagar's byline because it would seem that he - despite writing for the Guardian - is one of the legions of journos who don't give a flying f-spaghetti monster about accuracy.

Note the 'Peter Kay was unavailable for comment' bit. So, Jeevan - what did Richard Dawkins say when you phoned to put your planned story to him?

Other Comments by stephenray

10. Comment #25090 by Corylus on March 10, 2007 at 4:31 am

It is interesting that this hack chose Peter Kay for this exercise in s**tstirring

Peter comes across as such a sweet, lovely man; one of those all too rare people that it is absolutely impossible to dislike. I can see the response that this is trying to elicit: "Richard Dawkins attacks Peter Kay! Peter Kay??! Wow, then he really must be as mean as they say".

Not fair, not fair at all. The Guardian used to be a sensible paper – I really do not know what they are playing of as late.

I think though that this might be an own goal. The Guardian could not refuse to print Richard's letter, and he comes across as very gracious in it.

Other Comments by Corylus

11. Comment #25091 by Richard Dawkins on March 10, 2007 at 4:40 am

"Note the 'Peter Kay was unavailable for comment' bit. So, Jeevan - what did Richard Dawkins say when you phoned to put your planned story to him?"

Er, well, actually he did phone my office, but he didn't get to speak to me personally. My PA is delightfully loyal and protective. Most people love her cheery and friendly telephone manner but it can occasionally be a little, shall we say, in-your-face, especially when she encounters a pushy journalist. I wouldn't have her any other way (and it would be unfair to blame her for not realising the peculiarly delicate circumstances of this case) but it does mean that Jeevan Vasagar is not entirely to blame for his failure to speak to me. I think we won't see a repetition of this mistake.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

12. Comment #25093 by sane1 on March 10, 2007 at 4:53 am

So, I didn't see the Guardian "spot," living out here as I do in god's Country in Colorado. I do have to say, though that I support the apology. It comes accross as gracious and kind - and that is never bad - it helps win friends and disarm enemies. Good luck Professor with the award business, and keep up the good work.

Other Comments by sane1

13. Comment #25094 by Homo economicus on March 10, 2007 at 5:00 am

Journalists should report the news, not try to create it.

Richard Dawkins is behaving impeccably.

Other Comments by Homo economicus

14. Comment #25098 by Paul Knowles on March 10, 2007 at 5:37 am

This man Wilson seems to me to be on a mission. Good thing is though, since the publication of Richards great book the religious seem to be going on the defensive. Why are they so worried. ??

Other Comments by Paul Knowles

15. Comment #25101 by Zaphod on March 10, 2007 at 5:45 am

Peter Kay is a funny guy. I have laughed a lot whenever he is on TV. That said just because he finds belief in a god comforting doesn't make it true. I would find it a comforting thought to have Scarlett Johansson as my lover, doesn't mean it will happen.

Other Comments by Zaphod

16. Comment #25103 by Zaphod on March 10, 2007 at 5:56 am

WOW. I just read the original article http://arts.guardian.co.uk/theatre/comedy/story/0,,2029053,00.html and I have to say this "Jeevan Vasagar" writes an article that stinks of agenda. He/She (I can't tell by the name) tries to paint Richard as a mean spirited atheist and Peter Kay as wholesome man of the people (which he is). Even down to the photos selected. Peter Kay is smiling and happy and Richard looks stern and serious.

I have lost respect for the guardian and Jeevan Vasagar (whom I never knew before. I wouldn't want to).

This kind if journalism is dishonest, disappointing and all to common. I expected more from the guardian to be honest.

Other Comments by Zaphod

17. Comment #25104 by justme on March 10, 2007 at 5:57 am

karlJ: "Why are YOU apologizing for a setup stunt that the "hired publicity machine" executed?"

Mr. Dawkins was correct in offering an apology precisely BECAUSE he was used by a smear group improperly.

By both offering an apology and putting the apology in context he is showing that he meant no offense and that his words were not intended as they were used. It also shows that both of them are victims of these scumbags.

Richard's response is both ethical (as it clears the air) and it is practical as it neutralizes any conflict that the bastards intended to foment (even if the conflict only existed in the minds of the public and not in the minds of either Peter or Richard).

Other Comments by justme

18. Comment #25106 by tuibguy on March 10, 2007 at 6:15 am

Well, now I have a new book on my "wish" list. And to Homo Economicus I believe that there are many newsbreakers who believe that their fame obliges them to be newsmakers. Our American media is riddled with them

I'm not sure where anybody got the idea that we should enjoy purely objective newsmedia outlets, except perhaps for journalism profs who feel that the craft they teach is "elevated."

Other Comments by tuibguy

19. Comment #25107 by Frederiksen78 on March 10, 2007 at 6:28 am

When you realize that something you have said, directly or indirectly, might have offended someone, it seems only fair to apoligize. It's not all about being right or wrong in an argument. Sincerely apologizing to someone even though you don't really feel that the mistake is your own reveals one of the more positive sides of the human being - I'm glad Richard Dawkins possesses this quality and I agree with his apology (if one can do such a thing). It was not the time and place to start an argument on who's right and who's wrong.

/J

Other Comments by Frederiksen78

20. Comment #25108 by moudiwort on March 10, 2007 at 6:37 am

I have to agree with Zaphod's second comment. Clearly an agenda there. It is a shame for the Guardian.

Other Comments by moudiwort

21. Comment #25111 by ExGodBotherer on March 10, 2007 at 6:57 am

not obviously related to this but I deleted the Guardian RSS feed from my bookmarks just 10 days ago after a clear-out. Jeevan Vasagar's article is indicative of the way the Guardian is going. It used to be my newspaper of choice; not any more.

Other Comments by ExGodBotherer

22. Comment #25112 by kkant on March 10, 2007 at 7:35 am

God DAMN it!! Is there no level to which these people won't stoop to protect their "invisible friend"? I can see no other reason for this deliberately constructed lie and baseless slander. Richard: if the journalist wasn't the one you spoke to, would you be willing to tell us who these hired goons were who spoke to you directly, and what organization they represented?

And by the way, that was a very well-worded apology and explanation. I hope anyone who read the original article also takes time to read your apology.

But regardless, I will be writing to the Guardian in response to this outrage, and demand that this Jeevan Vasagar (1) recant his statements, (2) admit he was duped into publishing deliberate lies, and (3) make a very public apology to RD, all in his regular column. This kind of "journalism" does not even qualify for the Weekly World News.

Other Comments by kkant

23. Comment #25115 by Richard Dawkins on March 10, 2007 at 7:58 am

Dear kkant.
Please don't write to the Guardian. Although I was very upset yesterday (actually more upset by the Daily Mail than by the Guardian) I think things are now settling down and with luck the whole business will be forgotten soon. I would hate it to be stirred up again. As I explained, it was not Jeevan Vasagar's fault that he was unable to speak to me to check his story. That was my responsibility for not having good procedures in place in my office. And the 'hired goons' were not employed by any particular newspaper. They were a publicity company hired by the Book Prize organization, who issued a Press Release which was then picked up by The Guardian. The publicity company were certainly over-zealous in their efforts to raise the profile of the Book Prize, but they have apologized to me very fulsomely, I have apologized to Peter Kay, and I think it really is now time to let it rest. I really would be sincerely and personally grateful if you would let things lie now.
Thank you
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

24. Comment #25117 by kkant on March 10, 2007 at 8:28 am

OK, thanks for the info Richard. I'll hold off on the letter and let it lie; this seems to be the sensible course as you say.

I hope this nonsense doesn't affect the polling for the book prize. And I hope this doesn't happen to you again. It's difficult enough making the contrarian case for rationality without this sort of thing getting in the way.

Other Comments by kkant

25. Comment #25118 by fenrisulven on March 10, 2007 at 8:33 am

Why not just pick up the phone and talk to the guy? Talking via a newspaper seems like a detour.

Other Comments by fenrisulven

26. Comment #25119 by justme on March 10, 2007 at 8:40 am

fenrisulven: "Why not just pick up the phone and talk to the guy? Talking via a newspaper seems like a detour."

The comments were used improperly in public, so a public statement is important. A phone call or email would be nice but not enough.

Other Comments by justme

27. Comment #25120 by Richard Dawkins on March 10, 2007 at 8:43 am

27. Comment #25118 by fenrisulven on March 10, 2007 at 8:33 am
"Why not just pick up the phone and talk to the guy? Talking via a newspaper seems like a detour."

Fenrisulven. It is not clear who think should pick up the phone, nor which guy he should be talking to. As far as I am concerned, the whole affair is now closed, and there is no need to talk about it any further to anyone. See my letter to kkant above. I have gone out of my way to tell the full story here, in an effort to dampen the fire down to cold embers, not blow it up into flames again. Please, let's all now let the matter drop. I really would be very grateful

Many thanks
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

28. Comment #25121 by uzi on March 10, 2007 at 8:54 am

What a classy response. If I were in such a situation there would have been clear anger and venom. As an American, I haven't learned the gift of British subtlety, but admire it when I see it. Though soft and gentle, he still packs a punch.

Other Comments by uzi

29. Comment #25125 by cheshirecat on March 10, 2007 at 9:08 am

If Richard Dawkins is subtle then I am a Dutchman.

Other Comments by cheshirecat

30. Comment #25126 by perkyjay on March 10, 2007 at 9:11 am

An apology was the only decent thing to do. It may
seem strange to some of the commenters here, but making an apology should never be seen as a sign of weakness. I always remember the definition of a true Englishman - someone who apologises before, during and after sex.

Other Comments by perkyjay

31. Comment #25128 by fenrisulven on March 10, 2007 at 9:15 am

Okay, closed.
However, Richard, I'm kind of amazed that you read this stuff.

Other Comments by fenrisulven

32. Comment #25132 by ksskidude on March 10, 2007 at 9:40 am

Richard,

I think its great that you participate in this forum. It makes me, and hopefully the rest of us feel more connected to you. Damn it now I sound like my wife! But its true. I enjoy knowing that just maybe RD might read what I have to write about, and maybe one day will respond. Thanks Richard for giving me more knowledge about the world in which I live.

Other Comments by ksskidude

33. Comment #25137 by Ian on March 10, 2007 at 10:14 am

If Richard Dawkins is subtle then I am a Dutchman.

Cheshirecat, I'm sure the only thing stopping you from claiming such an honourable title is the population of Holland. ;-)

For your information, subtlety is not something you are, but something you do. The professor is very good at sublety and rather good at saying it as it is. That's why he's a world renound writer.

Other Comments by Ian

34. Comment #25138 by fenrisulven on March 10, 2007 at 10:14 am

I have to agree with ksskidude.
And I didn't intend to be negative in anyway in my last remark, just amazed. I have really enjoyed the publications of mr Dawkins, some several times.
Thanks!

Other Comments by fenrisulven

35. Comment #25139 by cheshirecat on March 10, 2007 at 10:30 am

His science may well be subtle. The selfish gene may be a brilliant book. However i'm increasingly alarmed by the way that he portrays people recently. I just think that calling people "faith-heads" is not clever or constructive. You don't understand the human condition by giving half the population of the planet that label. Its saying "I know what you all are, I understand you perfectly and I don't like you". If thats what you want to say then fine. I just don't call it subtle thats all. I mean no more than that. I would like to know what others think about the term "faith-heads" and the use of language in general.

Other Comments by cheshirecat

36. Comment #25140 by fenrisulven on March 10, 2007 at 10:44 am

Now its getting intresting.
How do you convince several billions of people that what they have been brought up to know is entirely false? Is that really possible. Maybe its impossible to change someone infested with religion since childhood.
In a simplified way its a kind of battle, good vs evil, where evil is religion and good is more of science or at least common sense view.
What words should we use? Provocation, or maybe that will sink them deeper into their illusion. This is a truly delicate dilemma of which I have no solution. The only thing I know about this is that its probably better to figth it, keep the pressure up, and finally (maybe it takes a long long time) the folly of religion will give in.

So Maybe he doesn't do it in the most psychological optimal way, but at least he's trying.
And he has pushed up the pressure. The intense response from the religious is a confirmation of that. Which in turns makes people think, which is a good thing.

By the way I think his latest books are of much higher class. Writers usually develops to do their thing better by time.

Other Comments by fenrisulven

37. Comment #25142 by Orion on March 10, 2007 at 10:55 am

"The controversy erupted after Dawkins read an excerpt from Kay's autobiography"

Virtually every word in that sentence is false.

Other Comments by Orion

38. Comment #25146 by Corylus on March 10, 2007 at 11:40 am

Comment 37. by Cheshire Cat

I understand your position. What type of language you use in debates, what helps and what does not, is a fine line to walk. (Personally, I can see valid points from both sides!) I think maybe you should talk about this in the forum.

N.B. This is not only because this is an important question, but also because I suspect that Richard has to keep a close eye on this particular thread. Reading criticism of oneself is never easy, and it sounds like he has been having a tough time for the last day or so. What say we cut the guy some slack?

Other Comments by Corylus

39. Comment #25147 by Jef on March 10, 2007 at 11:53 am

I'm not sure which i find more saddening; that someone somewhere went to all the trouble of manufacturing such an utterly vacuous 'controversy', or that somebody else considered it 'news'.

Does everything in this country have to be reduced to the level of gossip before people will take an interest?

Other Comments by Jef

40. Comment #25148 by Jack Rawlinson on March 10, 2007 at 11:53 am

That was pure, shameless tabloid-style shit-stirring by The Guardian's writer and just the latest in a depressing string of articles which are either badly-argued pro-religion pieces or snide, distorting attacks on atheists and atheism.

I've had it with the Guardian. I've been saying this for some time but that's enough. With heavy heart I'm shifting to The Indy. It may be boring but last time I checked it wasn't churning out this sort of nonsense.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

41. Comment #25149 by cheshirecat on March 10, 2007 at 11:54 am

Don't you have friends who so to speak hold differing views on the question of whether there is a God? I do. I don't want to go calling my friends "faith-heads" because I don't agree with them. They aren't any less kind or intelligent or funny for believing in God. It is not for me to decide whether they are deluded or not, that is their problem. So this is partly why I object to the term.

Then if you do believe that you are of the same species as everyone else on the planet, ("Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind" etc etc) why would you hold yourself above and apart from them in such a way. I think its this aspect that dosen't play so well in the media.

I'm sure Richard can take criticism. If I had just written a best seller I think I could take any ammount of criticism in good humour.

Other Comments by cheshirecat

42. Comment #25150 by Jack Rawlinson on March 10, 2007 at 11:58 am

It is not for me to decide whether they are deluded or not

Why not, cheshirecat? Don't you make judgements about your friends' - and enemies' - personalities and qualities? Isn't that how we decide who we even want to be friends with: by deciding that we like this or that about them, or that we dislike certain aspects of their behaviour and views?

One of the things I value about my friendships is honesty. If I think a friend of mine is talking nonsense or deluding him or herself I say so. And I hope they'd do the same for me.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

43. Comment #25151 by cheshirecat on March 10, 2007 at 12:11 pm

I wouldn't for the world impose my opinions on my friends. I don't think we are for one moment being dishonest. We all know each others opinions but I don't go through a checklist of my opinions and beliefs when chosing my friends. I got to like people before I knew anything about their beliefs. If you only know people who agree with you in every way what on earth do you talk about?

Other Comments by cheshirecat

44. Comment #25152 by pedant on March 10, 2007 at 12:25 pm

> I hope you will allow me publicly to apologise

It surprises me that a man who considers himself free from superstition should still subscribe to this fetichistic avoidance of the split infinitive. You have made your sentence ugly to no purpose, and you would be blind not to see so.

Fowler could have set you straight. So, for that matter, could Wikipedia.

Other Comments by pedant

45. Comment #25154 by Jef on March 10, 2007 at 1:14 pm

It surprises me that a man who considers himself free from superstition should still subscribe to this fetichistic avoidance of the split infinitive. You have made your sentence ugly to no purpose, and you would be blind not to see so.

Your paragraph is seemingly contradictory. On the one hand you are saying he should avoid the split infinitive; on the other you say that doing so is fetishistic, purposeless and makes his sentence ugly. Are you trying to say that he should make his sentences ugly? Were you otherwise intending to make some point about strict adherence to linguistic rules not being necessary to convey meaning?

:P

Other Comments by Jef

46. Comment #25155 by Ian on March 10, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Cheshirecat,

I sympathise with your position, as I have friends who are Christian, Moslem and Sikh.

Professor Dawkins' choice of words was not a failure, either of talent or tactic. Had The God Delusion not been so forthright, then it simply would not have had anything like the impact it has had. This is because the religious may be easy to offend, but there is no way you could claim they are considerate - not when it comes to respecting any religious grouping that has not got some sort of weaponry. - Look at the sudden change of attitude to Islam after the fatwa was declared against Salman Rushdie.

Unless they are given a wake up call, the religious will quite happily roll on their merry way - not only discriminating and deriding each other, but us as well.

Like a great many people, I'm very grateful to Professsor Dawkins for sticking his neck out as he has and for taking the ensuing flak - much of which has not merely been unfair, but downright dispicable.

Other Comments by Ian

47. Comment #25156 by Veronique on March 10, 2007 at 1:31 pm

I haven't read the offending article in The Guardian and don't want to. RD has apologised for his words being taken out of context and misapplied. End of story.

As to what language to use - I think a very good case can be made for linguistic politeness. And I think it is time we all thought about how we use language.

It's one thing to let off steam here on this thread; we all understand the angst and frustration of having to deal with nonsense.

I was brought up understanding that clear, grammatical speech underpinned clear thinking.

I am not as stringent as Pedant on split infinitives !! however I think it behooves all of us to think about what we are actually trying to say.

I have a close friend who believes in 'the universe'. I ask her to substitute 'god' or the 'teapot' for 'universe', but this habit of hers is too difficult for her to break and, of course, it indicates a mind set anyway. I don't ridicule her in any way. It is a very slow process trying to bring her to think critically about her belief system.

The other thing she seems utterly unable to break is poor grammar. She uses the personal pronoun 'I' whether she means it as a subject or object. She uses 'laying' when she means 'lying'. I try to get her to hear her voice as she's speaking. This is virtually impossible for her, so I get her to read speeches out loud and change the timbre of her voice so that she may hear that voice as she speaks.

That too is difficult for her. If I were to take her to task for every error, we would never be able to have a conversation. Sigh! And I would lose my friendship with her because she, quite rightly, would see everything I say as criticism.

The same applies to my born-again neighbour. I think he is deluded but I can't call him that every day. We rarely talk about religion and he cherry picks the science that he says he has respect for. He is totally unable to change his mindset. In all other ways he and I get on well enough (he does bore me terribly; he can't discuss anything, not even the cricket because he's a one-eyed Aussie and hates it when anyone else wins!!). Very intemperate of him!

I don't want to alienate people, that defeats the purpose of trying to educate. Care, however, must be taken; calling people faith heads, uneducated, muddled thinker, no-brainer or whatever will defeat my purpose.

I would not take RD to task for his language; it's far too late for that; he is in print and the labelling language he used in TGD was designed for a different purpose. I am sure he doesn't intentionally set out to hurt people. He is trying to educate and bring to the fore some reasoned thought to replace blind belief. He knew, when he started to communicate via TGD, that he was entering the firing line. His use of language in that book, I presume, was to highlight and bring this issue into the public arena. He has done that.

His interviews however, even with Haggard, smack of quiet, reasoned response (well, sometimes he gets a little testy and no-one can blame him for that!). He's a well educated Brit after all and has to put up with more nonsense that any of us has to. He rarely makes grammatical errors in his speech and doesn't refer to his fellow interviewees by incendiary labels despite the vitriol and abuse he suffers in some interviews. Contrast his interviews with someone like Ann Coulter!!

We could do worse than take a leaf out of his book, so to speak. :)

Cheers
V

PS. what means lol? The others I can work out, well, at least, most of them. I wouldn't mind an explanatory list if anyone has the patience to write it for my edification. :)

Other Comments by Veronique

48. Comment #25160 by Luthien on March 10, 2007 at 2:43 pm

PS. what means lol? The others I can work out, well, at least, most of them. I wouldn't mind an explanatory list if anyone has the patience to write it for my edification. :)

LOL = Laugh Out Loud
ROTFL = Rolling on the floor laughing
LMAO = laughing my ass off
OFC = of course
BTW = by the way
IMO / IMHO = in my opinion / in my humble opinion
WTF = what the f*ck?
BRB = be right back
1337 = ignore the person who uses this, he is probably only 14 and is destined never to have contact with anything other than his keyboard :P

That's all I can think of off hand :)

Other Comments by Luthien

49. Comment #25167 by mikkala on March 10, 2007 at 3:44 pm

It takes a big man to admit he's wrong.
It takes an even bigger man to apologize, when he has nothing to admit to.

Doesn't the organized media obscure the point almost beyond reason?

Other Comments by mikkala

50. Comment #25177 by Jack Rawlinson on March 10, 2007 at 5:15 pm

cheshirecat: I wasn't suggesting you should impose your beliefs on your friends. I was suggesting you should assess theirs (and yours) honestly, and not shrink from making a rational judgement about them.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson