Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Richard Dawkins interview about 'The Greatest Show on Earth'
by Stefanie Marsh - The Times
CLICK HERE to see more about Richard Dawkins' new book The Greatest Show on Earth
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6804971.ece
A last-minute crisis in the Dawkins household meant that we were unable to meet — as was planned — at his home in Oxford where I had intended to infer from his three libraries, the birds’ nests that he apparently keeps in his living room, all sorts of deep meanings about Britain’s Top Public Intellectual (Prospect magazine, May 2008).
The day before our interview, however, there was an urgent telephone call from Dawkins’ assistant: Richard’s beloved dog had died, I was told, the atmosphere in the household was too funereal for an interview. Instead, we were to meet in one of the characterless rooms in New College where, when the day came, Britain’s “angriest”, most “vituperative” atheist — as his many critics like to call him, along with “belligerent”, and even “mad” — greeted me in a cheerful if rather delicate mood from behind a set of double doors.
Anybody who has ever met Dawkins outside a debating room describes him as a rather shy man — not at all the “Darwin’s rottweiler” of public life. In private I found him to be charming, if slightly irritable at times, a surprisingly romantic creature who is also the kind of person one can imagine bitching behind your back for being too thick. At one point he launched into a long, perfectly articulated and very soulful description of what it was like looking up at the stars at night in an attempt to convey how an understanding of science can enhance one’s experience of the natural world. He is also passionate about poetry — Haussman, Shakespeare, Yeats — and admits to being “rather embarrassingly, rather shamingly moved to tears when I read poetry aloud”.
...
Continue reading
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6804971.ece
A last-minute crisis in the Dawkins household meant that we were unable to meet — as was planned — at his home in Oxford where I had intended to infer from his three libraries, the birds’ nests that he apparently keeps in his living room, all sorts of deep meanings about Britain’s Top Public Intellectual (Prospect magazine, May 2008).
The day before our interview, however, there was an urgent telephone call from Dawkins’ assistant: Richard’s beloved dog had died, I was told, the atmosphere in the household was too funereal for an interview. Instead, we were to meet in one of the characterless rooms in New College where, when the day came, Britain’s “angriest”, most “vituperative” atheist — as his many critics like to call him, along with “belligerent”, and even “mad” — greeted me in a cheerful if rather delicate mood from behind a set of double doors.
Anybody who has ever met Dawkins outside a debating room describes him as a rather shy man — not at all the “Darwin’s rottweiler” of public life. In private I found him to be charming, if slightly irritable at times, a surprisingly romantic creature who is also the kind of person one can imagine bitching behind your back for being too thick. At one point he launched into a long, perfectly articulated and very soulful description of what it was like looking up at the stars at night in an attempt to convey how an understanding of science can enhance one’s experience of the natural world. He is also passionate about poetry — Haussman, Shakespeare, Yeats — and admits to being “rather embarrassingly, rather shamingly moved to tears when I read poetry aloud”.
...
Continue reading
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6804971.ece
Comments 1 - 50 of 175 | | View Alternate Comment Thread
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #408090 by NewSkeptic on August 22, 2009 at 2:13 am
A well written article, and it helps solidify another side to Richard.Sorry too about Pamba.
Other Comments by NewSkeptic
3. Comment #408093 by mordacious1 on August 22, 2009 at 2:22 am
NS
Type faster.:)
btw, speaking of cretinists in the USA...I just ordered the crockoduck T-shirt off the front page. A little expensive, but it's for a good cause (pissing off morons).
Other Comments by mordacious1
4. Comment #408094 by Thurston on August 22, 2009 at 2:40 am
I think this is one of Richard's best interviews and is a fantastic antidote to all those who babble about fundamentalism, stridency and shrillness. Other Comments by Thurston
5. Comment #408099 by Squigit on August 22, 2009 at 3:24 am
I, too, am very sorry about Pamba, Richard.There's not much to say about the interview. It was good. :)
Other Comments by Squigit
6. Comment #408103 by j.mills on August 22, 2009 at 3:28 am
He is also passionate about poetry — Haussman, Shakespeare, YeatsI'm gonna take a punt here that they meant Houseman. (And this is in The Times!)
The Greatest Show on Earth is published by Bantam Press on September 10 at £20. To buy it for £18 call 0845 2712134 or visit timesonline.co.uk/booksfirstWell, you could do that. Or you could do like me and "pre-order" it from amazon for a tenner...
Something about the tone of this piece niggles at me. Like this:
Unlike with the previous book, most people in Britain will agree with most of what Dawkins has to say in The Greatest Show on Earth. But they still find him irritating for being such a literalist, so passionate and emotional.Who are "they" in that sentence? "Most people in Britain"? And how does the writer know what "they" think of RD? Marsh seems to vindicate rather than contradict the charges of "stridency" and so forth.
Other Comments by j.mills
7. Comment #408114 by SaintStephen on August 22, 2009 at 4:13 am
From Wikipedia:
The Coton is a playful, affectionate, intelligent breed. It loves people and as a result can have separation anxiety. It loves life and is enthusiastic and lively. It is a very vocal breed, grunting and making other noises when having fun. Some Cotons have a habit of jumping up and walking on their hind legs to please people. Some Cotons may exhibit shyness or cautiousness in new situations, especially around strangers, but this can usually be overcome with training. Most Cotons love meeting new people and are very curious in new situations. The dogs are very trainable with praise, instead of punishment. They can be great with other dogs.
I bet Pamba was a wonderful companion. In her memory and honor, I hope Richard can find another pet to love soon. What animal wouldn't be delighted to have Richard Dawkins as a master?
Other Comments by SaintStephen
8. Comment #408118 by dumbcountryhick on August 22, 2009 at 4:25 am
"And they’re not really interested in what’s true, they’re interested in what feels right or what feels good or what’s moral or, um ... if I may put it this way, what feels to be true: "Yes! So one must change what they FEEL to be true. And the way to do this is not with evolution but emotion.
Everyday around the world horrible things happen to people who couldn't possibly deserve it.
And the important question to ask people is not the common "Why does God permit evil£" but instead the more seldom asked "Why are you worshiping a god that permits evil£" Who cares WHY God permits evil. There is very little to distinguish a universe with a god that permits evil (for ANY reason) from a godless universe.
These are the kind of arguments they will listen to because they shake the true foundation of their faith i.e. "What's in it for me, my family, or my friends£". Get them off God first. THEN they will listen when you talk about evolution.
Other Comments by dumbcountryhick
9. Comment #408121 by SaintStephen on August 22, 2009 at 4:53 am
Taken from the text of the article:
Howard Jacobson is “an odiou pseudo-intellectual”;
Any idea what odiou means? Anybody?
Here is what Google says.
Typo?
Other Comments by SaintStephen
10. Comment #408125 by SaintStephen on August 22, 2009 at 5:27 am
Yes, obviously. Thanks thomas.
I have another gripe though. (Why am I letting this article bother me? It is a good interview.) -->
He’s written eight books on evolution so far and one wouldn’t have thought there can be that much more to say on the subject.
Eight whole books Ms. Marsh! How much more can a mortal human possibly say about any one subject?
It's a daft comment. Period.
Other Comments by SaintStephen
11. Comment #408126 by NakedCelt on August 22, 2009 at 5:36 am
My condolences on your loss, Richard.Other Comments by NakedCelt
12. Comment #408129 by Big City on August 22, 2009 at 6:14 am
Sorry to hear about Pamba, Richard. As a fellow animal-lover, I know that an uncanny amount of comfort can be derived(deriven?) from a relationship with a pet.Everyone else:
I didn't like the tone of this article. It seemed to portray Richard as unreasonable, defensive, condescending, and rather aloof, like he thought he was above petty, human emotions. What is it about "Folks shouldn't turn off their brains when it comes to religion!" that is so hard to understand?
Other Comments by Big City
13. Comment #408137 by Layla Nasreddin on August 22, 2009 at 7:34 am
I'm so sorry about Pamba. Losing a beloved pet really is losing a family member, and I know how much it hurts. I'd read about her before and knew she was ill, but hoped she might get better. At least she isn't suffering now, banal as that sentiment may be.
And does this fuzzy-headedness mystify him? “Yes, it does. And they will say things like, ‘Well it’s obviously not true but who cares in what’s true?’ And they’re not really interested in what’s true, they’re interested in what feels right or what feels good or what’s moral or, um ... if I may put it this way, what feels to be true: ‘There’s a deeper truth than mere scientific truth’ and that sort of thing. ‘There are spiritual truths that transcend scientific truths and which are so much more valuable and humane’.”
I suppose there's a difference betweeen "true" (meaning factually correct) and "true" (meaning that it explains or describes something about human nature or the world or whatever, regardless of its factual veracity). A novel may be fiction but "true" in the sense that it really communicates what it's like to be this character and have these feelings, thoughts, experiences, and people might see themselves in some of that, or come to some kind of understanding about themselves. (I suppose students of literature or fiction writers will be able to tell you all about this!) A myth or legend may be factually false but "true" in the sense that it captures something about the human condition or teaches a moral via storytelling.
Still, when these myths and legends are taken to be also "true" in the "factual validity" sense, that's certainly a problem! And there is the problem that many of them lose a lot of meaning when "reduced" to metaphor -- the Christian story of Jesus's death resurrection kind of loses something if you see it as merely a metaphor and not as literally, factually true. I mean, the bottom kind of falls out from almost all versions of Christianity with that kind of reading.
Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
14. Comment #408178 by etny on August 22, 2009 at 11:12 am
"What he does far better than mauling other people with his fabulous intellect is unravelling the delights of the natural world"Frankly, I am tired of these condescending journalists and pundits who keep bashing Pr Dawkins' more abrasive side.
Abrasiveness is sometimes warranted and effective. Do you think Voltaire was Mister Nice Guy? Do you think wars are fought with flowers? There is a war raging on between the enlightenment and religion. We need strong words in brilliant minds, to counter the hatred, bigotry and ignorance that speaks so loudly in the US and elsewhere.
So, in Billy Joel's words
Richard, don't go changing...
I like you just the way you are.
Other Comments by etny
15. Comment #408179 by NewEnglandBob on August 22, 2009 at 11:20 am
13. Comment #408129 by Big City:I agree with you. This is NOT a well written article at all.
Does he find it annoying that there are so many stupid people in the world?
That is a awful in tone and intent. The interviewer is confrontational and assumes that the world hates Richard.
Other Comments by NewEnglandBob
16. Comment #408180 by hotpinkape on August 22, 2009 at 11:32 am
"Soon after he gives me the talk about stars. If only this, Richard Dawkins’ poetic, highly articulate, deeply moved and moving side could come to the fore more often, we might begin to remember how very lucky we are to have him"
Yes, well those of us who have read his books and actually paid attention to what he DOES say, already know this.
It's scientists like Professor Dawkins who have allowed me - an atheist with strong nihilistic leanings - to open my eyes and see that there IS meaning in my life, it's whatever I choose to give it.
We are lucky to have him, and all of our scientists.
Other Comments by hotpinkape
17. Comment #408181 by Mark Jones on August 22, 2009 at 11:53 am
Sorry, too, to hear about Pamba. Other Comments by Mark Jones
18. Comment #408182 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2009 at 12:10 pm
The loss of a dear pet can be very significant. My condolences, Richard.On the the article:
One gets the impression that he is in an almost permanent state of dumbfoundedness at humankind’s ability to hold two contradicting ideas in its head: “It’s almost as though they [vicars] don’t really see the distinction between actually what’s true and what is only true in a metaphorical or mythological sense. It’s as though they don’t really care about the difference. I think that’s it! They don’t really care about the difference!”
And does this fuzzy-headedness mystify him? “Yes, it does.
A couple of things come to mind here.
First, I would say that this is simply what humanity is like! This is the way most of us live most of our lives. If we weren't fuzzy-headed, would we ever fall in love? Have children? Act on impulse?
There is an hilarious example of what happens if we try and abolish fuzzy-headedness here:
Mitchell and Webb Best Man's speech.
What most people need to realise is when we should work to be not fuzzy-headed. I think that is the real struggle.
The second thing that comes to mind is the way that scientists are taught to think usually results in a far more critical and rational way of looking at the world in my experience.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
19. Comment #408186 by Cosmin on August 22, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Good article! Wish I could see a video of the interview somewhere, without all the ado in the article.Sorry to hear about Pamba though.
Other Comments by Cosmin
20. Comment #408190 by Mark Jones on August 22, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I would be interested to hear if The Times have commissioned Richard to write a puff piece for his book like this one by Karen Armstrong for her book? Interviews like this one, whilst giving some excellent quotes, still include the usual snarky comments:
The idea that Dawkins is capable of doing very much more than deeply offending people...
...
But they still find him irritating for being such a literalist...
I expect Muslim women being stoned to death are a tad irritated that those condemning them are literalist in their reading of the Koran.
But by 'literalist' I guess she means insisting on reasons and evidence. *How* irritating, insisting on someone giving a reason for telling us how to behave. It's so much easier to just make *assertions* based on one's prejudice (intuition!), isn't it.
Richard says:
I know quite a lot about evolution and there are plenty of people out there who know nothing about evolution and who probably who would enjoy learning something about evolution.
No doubt the theists and faitheists will jump on this and swap theology for evolution, and tu quoque. There *is* an important distinction, though; the subject for study, *any* subject, must pass a basic worthiness test; is the evidence there to show that this is a worthwhile area of study? Evolution has a great deal of evidence for its worthiness; astrology, alchemy and theology, not nearly so much. For an atheist, theology has practically no evidence for its worthiness, although not precluding its study for cultural reasons. No doubt theists, presupposing a deity, consider the evidence sufficient, and go on to waste many good intellects on a fiction.
If the basic *premise* of a subject is dismissed as probably not true, given the evidence, then that subject needn't be analysed deeply. And that is exactly how theists operate in everyday life too, and why it's important for books such as The Greatest Show on Earth to establish, or rather, *reinforce* this premise for evolution.
Other Comments by Mark Jones
21. Comment #408197 by Butler on August 22, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Richard, through no fault of his own, does seem to scare the crap out of every reporter he meets. Other Comments by Butler
22. Comment #408237 by HughCaldwell on August 22, 2009 at 4:08 pm
I wonder what the afterlife holds for Pamba. Will she frolic for eternity in the flowery fields of Heaven? Perhaps a religionist has some inside information here.Other Comments by HughCaldwell
23. Comment #408250 by j.mills on August 22, 2009 at 5:09 pm
All dogs go to heaven. (Or is it "all gods..."?) Other Comments by j.mills
24. Comment #408264 by heathen2 on August 22, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Maybe the interview was good, but I found the tone of the article annoying. Such as:
"those who accuse him not only of a virulent disrespect for religion but of being an apologist for Hitler and Stalin"
I've never heard or read anything that indicated that RD is an apologist for either Hitler or Stalin. Or that he has been accused of that. I think what has been conveyed is that Stalin's atheism was unrelated to his atrocities, which is not the same as being an apologist for Stalin.
Other Comments by heathen2
25. Comment #408278 by Stella on August 22, 2009 at 6:41 pm
So sorry for your loss, Richard. My "pets," too, are more like family. Other Comments by Stella
26. Comment #408280 by HughCaldwell on August 22, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Stefanie Marsh is suffering from the usual interviewer's compulsion to show she's smarter than the interviewee. This is done by inserting lofty-sounding tosh by way of comment. The last paragraph is particularly senseless.Other Comments by HughCaldwell
27. Comment #408331 by decius on August 22, 2009 at 10:38 pm
He’s written eight books on evolution so far and one wouldn’t have thought there can be that much more to say on the subject.
Let me guess, Stephanie Marsh is a journalist.
My condolences on your loss, Richard.
I can imagine how you must feel, as I was forced to put down Jackass - my beloved pet of 13 years - just about a month ago.
Other Comments by decius
28. Comment #408357 by Hellene on August 23, 2009 at 12:46 am
Richard,There's a dog out there that needs you.
Hellene
Other Comments by Hellene
29. Comment #408367 by -dr- on August 23, 2009 at 1:48 am
To his credit, anything that’s written about him, good or bad, Dawkins links to his website, alongside a campaign to “out” closet atheists…
I take that to mean exposing closeted atheists against their will. Am I perhaps missing a British nuance in the phrase… or is it a bad choice of words?
David in Toronto
Other Comments by -dr-
30. Comment #408373 by Richard Dawkins on August 23, 2009 at 2:22 am
To his credit, anything that’s written about him, good or bad, Dawkins links to his website, alongside a campaign to “out” closet atheists…
I take that to mean exposing closeted atheists against their will. Am I perhaps missing a British nuance in the phrase… or is it a bad choice of words?
David in Toronto
Thank you for noticing this, David in Toronto. I had already written to Stefanie Marsh, as follows:-
Dear Stefanie
Thank you, your interview has come out nicely. I am pleased that you mentioned our beloved Pamba.
Too late for the paper edition, but in the on-line edition you might like to correct a couple of typos. The poet I mentioned is, of course, not Haussmann but Housman (A Shropshire Lad etc), and Howard Jacobson is odious (not odiou).
More difficult to correct is that, in the OUT campaign, the one thing we have been absolutely adamant about is that we do NOT 'out' closet atheists. On the contrary, we encourage people to come out by outing ourselves."Atheists are far more numerous than most people realize. COME OUT of the closet! You'll feel liberated, and your example will encourage others to COME OUT too. (Don't "out" anybody else, wait for them to OUT themselves when they are ready to do so).(http://en.outcampaign.org/)
More sharply, I said the following in my article launching the OUT campaign."Before I go any further, I must forestall one major risk of misunderstanding. The obvious comparison with the gay community is vulnerable to going too far: to 'outing' as a transitive verb whose object might be an unfortunate individual not yet — or not ever — ready to confide in the world. Our OUT campaign will have nothing, repeat nothing to do with outing in that active sense. If a closet atheist wants to come out, that is her decision to make, and nobody else's. What we can do is provide support and encouragement to those who willingly decide to out themselves. This may seem trivial to people in parts of Europe, or in regions of the United States dominated by urban intellectuals where support and encouragement is unnecessary. It is anything but trivial to people in other areas of the United States, and even more so in parts of the Islamic world where apostasy is, by Koranic authority, punishable by death."
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1471,The-Out-Campaign,Richard-Dawkins
All good wishes,Stefanie, and thanks again.
Richard
Richard
Other Comments by Richard Dawkins
31. Comment #408376 by hadespussercats on August 23, 2009 at 2:37 am
It was a somewhat bittersweet pleasure to read such a sensitively written article.I'm sorry you lost your dog, Richard.
May your memories of her make you smile .
Other Comments by hadespussercats
32. Comment #408407 by seals on August 23, 2009 at 8:38 am
Re-reading the article there do seem to be a few barbs in it. Could it be that it's not the done thing to appear too supportive, is there some unspoken code out there that some kind of angle must be taken to avoid being accused of or appearing sycophantic, another easily triggered criticism? Yet this doesn't excuse factual errors such as the "outing" one.Hmm the word "ignorant" conveys more than its literal meaning of unknowingness/lack of knowledge and has been used as an insult so much that it's now mostly reduced to that sense of the word. Maybe it's somewhat justified though as there is an element of blame nowadays for lack of knowledge, at least where free education is available, and other words don't seem to have the same impact.
My sympathies about Pamba, so sorry to hear about that. I always remember her as she was on Enemies of Reason, she was so cute - she was immortalised on that programme in a way.
Other Comments by seals
33. Comment #408477 by -dr- on August 23, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Dr. Dawkins flagged as a troll on his own website...?Other Comments by -dr-
34. Comment #408516 by Ophelia Benson on August 23, 2009 at 5:02 pm
"I think there’s a widespread perception that I am polemical and strident and shrill and things,” he says a little dolefully. “I don’t think I’m strident and shrill."Been there!
So sad about beloved little dog. Sniff. Been there too. Sniff.
Waaaaaaaaah!
Other Comments by Ophelia Benson
35. Comment #408524 by seals on August 23, 2009 at 5:16 pm
When a comment has been flagged as troll and goes to the alternate thread, shouldn't there be an option to flag it as non-troll? Other Comments by seals
36. Comment #408791 by Quetzalcoatl on August 24, 2009 at 11:21 am
happyhooker-
You're an idiot.
That is all.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
37. Comment #408797 by ForestMist on August 24, 2009 at 11:56 am
Condolences on the loss of Pamba - it is a very sad thing, to lose a beloved pet.
I'm with Richard on not being able to understand how people can hold conflicting ideas in their head, it baffles me completely. However, we got a flyer through our door the other day about one of those scary Alpha courses being held soon in one of the local churches, and my chap reckons I should go to try and find out how this is managed. Am not sure if I can manage this without going totally barmy though!
Other Comments by ForestMist
38. Comment #408798 by Quetzalcoatl on August 24, 2009 at 12:02 pm
ForestMist-
The Guardian is running a series of articles on the Alpha Course: the latest can be found here.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
39. Comment #408802 by ForestMist on August 24, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Thanks for the link Quetz - although it took forever to open!
I'm still undecided about whether to go - part of me thinks it would be really interesting to see why people believe what they believe, part of me thinks that I would find it incredibly frustrating. There are some people I work with who are religious, but couldn't talk to them about it as that could be grounds for a disciplinary, and none of my friends are religious (apart from one who believes in Odin, Thor etc), so no luck there.
And because, like Richard said in the article, I am so baffled about how people can belive in contradictory things, it would be interesting to find out how and why they do.
Would be interested in what anyone else thinks, whether on here or by pm
Other Comments by ForestMist
40. Comment #408810 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 24, 2009 at 12:29 pm
ForestMist, I've been on the Alpha course. I too was intrigued and eventually allowed my curiosity to get the better of me. It's not frightening. Mine was almost laughable. The frustrating thing was still not really understanding why these people believed in christianity. None of my questions were properly answered. They may as well have continued to chant that "God works in mysterious ways". Essentially, they reckoned I could end up being a believer if I spent a few years insisting to myself that god existed and if I continually prayed to my imagined friend (I just had to keep pretending god existed long enough to be able to convince myself)
What I found weird was that nearly everyone else on the Alpha course I went on had already been on the alpha course before! It felt like "One flew over the Cuckoo's Nest". I wanted to laugh out loud, "So none of you other guys need to be here!"
I suggest you don't need to go there, other than to be disappointed at the lack of explanation of why anyone should believe that stuff. And to be shocked that "Predicting the future, Healing people with god-magic, and Speaking in magical gibberish" is all too main-stream in quite a few churches!
Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus
41. Comment #408818 by Richard Dawkins on August 24, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Hahahahaha hohohoho! I just can't stop laughing, this is gold!
Why is that funny? I am genuinely and sincerely curious. My wife and I have lost a very dear dog, whom we deeply loved. We feel the loss terribly. What kind of a person would respond to such sorrow with "Hahahahaha hohohoho! I just can't stop laughing . . ."
I'm betting that "Happy Hooker" is NOT an atheist.
Richard
Other Comments by Richard Dawkins
42. Comment #408823 by Quetzalcoatl on August 24, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Richard Dawkins-
My condolences on the loss of your dog.
It seems most likely that "Happy Hooker" is a troll simply looking for attention. Some people have nothing better to do with their time, apparently.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
43. Comment #408825 by Paula Kirby on August 24, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Richard Dawkins:: I'm betting that "Happy Hooker" is NOT an atheist.Indeed not. This was clearly a post by one of our loving, compassionate and deeply moral Christian brothers and sisters.
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
44. Comment #408827 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2009 at 1:29 pm
What kind of a person would respond to such sorrow with "Hahahahaha hohohoho! I just can't stop laughing . . ."
Or to expressions of sympathy with mockery. What an awful person. Playing the usual trolling games on a site is one thing. This kind of behaviour is truly shameful.
Sorry you had to read that Richard. Sympathies again to you and your wife.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
45. Comment #408828 by Philip1978 on August 24, 2009 at 1:32 pm
RichardI am very sorry to hear about your dog, you have my deepest sympathies. I had a dog for 15 years and it broke my heart when she died, my family and I still miss her even now. Saying that I do have very fond memories and feel very lucky to have known such an amazing dog.
Happyhooker, why do honest messages of sympathy for Richard make you laugh?
I can't believe you logged in today just to announce that, have you got anything better to contribute?
Other Comments by Philip1978
46. Comment #408831 by Peacebeuponme on August 24, 2009 at 1:42 pm
RichardNot that it casts happyhooker in anything like a better light, but he or she was commenting on the messages of condolence rather than the actual loss of your dog.
Still, the comment remains insensitive and pointless, entirely out of keeping with the majority of posters here.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
47. Comment #408832 by zeroangel on August 24, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I clicked on "other comments by happyhooker" and there are none. Just this one. Show em the ban hammer and be done with it.
Of course they could come back, but it's the principle.
Richard:
Sorry to hear about your loss.
Other Comments by zeroangel
48. Comment #408833 by Richard Dawkins on August 24, 2009 at 1:47 pm
I don't want to ban Happy Hooker. I want an explanation from her. I am genuinely curious to fathom the sickness of a certain kind of religious mind.Richard
Other Comments by Richard Dawkins
49. Comment #408843 by zeroangel on August 24, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Richard:
I am genuinely curious to fathom the sickness of a certain kind of religious mind.You are a braver man than I. Oh, and since this is one of the few occasions which I have got your attention, thank you for TGD, it really put things in perspective for me.
Other Comments by zeroangel
50. Comment #408849 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Comment #408833 by Richard DawkinsIt may not be a certain kind of religious mind, Richard. If you go onto almost any high-profile site that puts forward controversial views you will sooner or later come across idiots who use rather sick sneering as a way of attempting to attack opponents. I am sorry to say I find posts like Hooker's depressing, but not that unusual.
But perhaps we will hear from The Hooker?
Other Comments by Steve Zara
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #408088 by mordacious1 on August 22, 2009 at 2:13 am
Other Comments by mordacious1