3251
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Mention in the Observer Newspaper
03/10/2006 15:02:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> The biggest issue we have right now is the fact that Michael Roberts
> has just walked out of the group because of its perceived bigotry.
I do not believe in pandering to any theological, or the lack thereof,
taste in here. We are hear to fight creationism, not to push anyone's
personal - or lack of - beliefs. If this upsets Michael, he needs to get
used to a dose of reality in dealing with issues such as this.
3252
Roger Stanyard
Yet Again the Point is Missed
03/10/2006 15:27:00
Yet again, we have had another three days of bitching about religion
and the net result is, er, guess what! Failure.
Let me lay this out very bluntly to everyone in this group.
It is not a matter of tolerating or agreeing with Michael Roberts or
any other religious person in this group.
It is absolutetly ESSENTIAL that this group not only has religious
people in it but that it is attractive to religious people.
For heaven's sake doesn't anyone get this simple equation.
Let me spell it out:
No Religious People = Failure
Let me spell it differently about what has happended ober the last week.
British Humanist Association = Failure
British Humanist Association + Ekklesia = Success
How the hell does anyone think that we got into the national press over
the last week. We were dependent on Christians. The BHA know it and
worked with Ekklesia. Michael Roberts kicked off the issue in Ekklesia.
the BHA leaked their joint letter with Ekklesia so we could take action.
The BHA tipped off the Observer about us. Do you really think the Times
would have published our letter had they not seen what Cohen wrote.
It's three months since we hammered this out within the group and still
some members don't get. Every damn week since me or Lenny has to point
out the dangers or arguing religion in this group. Even with that some
people don't get it.
Every damn posting in this group that is anti-religious is DANGEROUS.
3253
Roger Stanyard
Re: Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times
03/10/2006 15:37:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
we're hard to find on Google unless you put the whole
> lot in quotemarks. I have some old software which I used to promote
> clients' web sites to the search engines. It'll be a bit out of date,
> but should still hit the main ones. Would you like me to dig it out an
> have a go, or has someone got a more modern one?
>
> OTOH the wiki pages haven't any metatags, which would help us up the
> rankings. Does anyone know whether the wiki will let us put some in
> the page source code (and let them stay there)?
>
> Brian
>
It's probably a good idea that we make the web site easy to find.
Mikey, quite rightly, believes that it will take until February or so
to really get it really together but some of the more amateur elements
in it have been cleaned up, most notably through the widespread
contribution to proof reading.
Tim Atkinson, who I met last Saturday in Winchester along with Alex
Labram of SJS, is doing proof reading at the moment as well.
I dunno anything about metatags or how to get the site's visiblity on
search engines improved so I can't advise on that.
Roger
3254
Dave Challender
Re: New Member, Dr Paul Millington
03/10/2006 15:40:00
On 10/2/06, Drew Smith <drewsmithtpa@gmail.com> wrote: ->
Roger: Reading (pronounced Redding for Americans)
Drew: Don't worry, Roger. Reading, as a place name, is almost always
pronounced that way in the United States, too. We have several states with
towns named that.
And the US gave the world the Reading fully fashioned stocking making machine (that led to mass manufacture of "nylons"), this was named after Reading, Pennsylvania.
..Totally irrelevent information, but as I see some members have a Leicester (now there is a fun name for some visitors to pronounce) connection , and Leicester has a fine hosiery tradition thought I would mention it in case it rang a few bells.
--
Regards
Dave
3255
Rudy Vonk
Re: Re: Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times
03/10/2006 16:01:00
On 03 oct 2006, at 15:29, Roger Stanyard wrote:
> I am far more worried that Michael Roberts has just walked out of this
> forum because of what he sees as the bigotry in it.
From his latest posts, my take is that Michael is the bigot supremo. He
didn't even bother to explain why the Observer article dented his nose
so much. If he stays, I shall hopefully remain respectful but
concentrate a little more on contesting his more untenable views. If he
has gone, good luck to a latent creationist.
I agree with Mikey (for once - and without wishing to establish
precedent, hehe) in that appeasement is the worst strategy this group
could choose. I also agree with you that the primary purpose of this
group is to fight creationism, not religion-bashing, but you have to
consider that pandering to "theists", "moderate Islamists" (world
record oxymoron) and the like will only welcome those who will betray
the fight for truth and science (not Truth in Science) as soon as
somebody attempts to sink their Noah's Ark or barbecue their sacred
cow.
Rather than repeating that you welcome Christians, Muslims,
Pastafarians and Moonies as long as they reject creationism (which is,
in a way, a perverted version of the Big Tent), perhaps you should
insist exclusively on the defense of science, and advise everybody that
the belief systems of the group's constituents are somewhat
caleidoscopic, and any offense should be digested privately since it is
OT as far as the group is concerned.
Only my 2¢, but I am getting a litlle alarmed by, as an example, the
multiplying attempts in certain anti-creationist circles to crucify
Richard Dawkins in order to satisfy the dithering theists. Do we really
need a "token priest", "token Muslim" or even "token Old Earth
Creationist" like every IBM annual report in the 60s had the "token,
er," well, nowadays he or she would be called African American?
I am entirely comfortable with the views of, for instance, our (and
DebunkCreation's) David Oldridge and others, but I see no reason to
view Michael Roberts' tantrum as a problem. I realise that I am an
atheist, but the Pope is fine with me :-)
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
3256
Rudy Vonk
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
03/10/2006 16:13:00
On 03 oct 2006, at 16:27, Roger Stanyard wrote:
> It is absolutetly ESSENTIAL that this group not only has religious
> people in it but that it is attractive to religious people.
A statement perhaps worthy of a poll...
I think it is ESSENTIAL that this group has people who support science.
If somebody's religious beliefs place limits on his or her commitment
to the advancement of science, I find it hard to accept that we should
modify our stance to accommodate him or her.
Given that I am not directly affected by the threat we are attempting
to counter (i.e. the teaching of ignorance in UK classrooms), I would
accept without complaint an invitation to leave, if we decide that
appeasement is the name of the game ;-)
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
3257
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times
03/10/2006 16:05:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> It's probably a good idea that we make the web site easy to find.
> Mikey, quite rightly, believes that it will take until February or so
> to really get it really together
Another plan of mine is to update my article on humans and chimps
sharing a common ancestor. An earlier version is on my website and some
of you will have seen me pasting it on DebunkCreation a few times.
Afterwards, I will send a copy across for the BCSE site.
3258
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times
03/10/2006 16:16:00
Rudy Vonk wrote:
> Rather than repeating that you welcome Christians, Muslims, Pastafarians
> and Moonies as long as they reject creationism (which is, in a way, a
> perverted version of the Big Tent), perhaps you should insist
> exclusively on the defense of science,
I, frankly, do not give a damn if a person believes in little green men
from Mars, providing they shut up about it in an inappropriate forum and
concentrate on the matter at hand: ensuring good science teaching and
pointing out, inspite or despite of their personal views, that many
theologians do not see an incompatibility.
3259
Mikey Brass
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
03/10/2006 16:08:00
I would like to modify a point:
Saying evolution proves religion is wrong, using evolution as proof that
atheism is correct is wrong for the purposes of this list.
What is at issue is this: evolution is evolution is evolution. The
issues which people have with evolution are religious in nature; the way
to counter this is to point out that the major theologians have no
problem in accepting religion and evolution.
3260
Roger Stanyard
Re: Getting Ourselves Organised
03/10/2006 16:27:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, JAF <anarch@...> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 19:34:07 -0000, you wrote:
>
> >
> >Any volunteers for this important role?
>
> One way is to add the url of the web site to a sig - as below.
>
> --
> JAF
> anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
> Helping to Keep Science Scientific
> BCSE - http://www.blackshadow.co.uk/
I have no problem at all with this except for posting messages in
Yahoo groups where it is likely to get to most results.
Rudy Volk tried to give me some help with this over a month ago but
it appears there is a problem with Yahoo UK.
Basically the Yahoo instructions for adding a signature to my
messages are as follows:
1. Sign in.
2. Go to Groups.
3. Then go to My Accounts
4. This is mostly taken uo with an area called Yahoo ID Card but to
the right is a sidebar called Public Information.
5. Within it is an area called Options.
6. The Yahoo instructions are to click on "Mail" within the options
list....
Presumably then I can add my siganture.
Except there is no option called Mail. It's missing!
Any ideas anyone about how to get round this absurd problem.
Roger
3261
Rudy Vonk
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
03/10/2006 16:28:00
On 03 oct 2006, at 17:08, Mikey Brass wrote:
> I would like to modify a point:
> Saying evolution proves religion is wrong, using evolution as proof
> that
> atheism is correct is wrong for the purposes of this list.
I really have no idea if this comment is a reaction to my mentioning
the current Dawkins-bashing vogue, but I doubt you can find either him,
me, or anybody in between (in intellectual capability) to have asserted
the above.
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
3262
Marc Draco
OT: the price of superstition?
03/10/2006 16:50:00
This is slightly OT, but relevant in a way - I'm just having a break so
I thought I'd fill everyone in on something I saw yesterday.
I was called my a friend's dad to see why his scanner and printer
weren't working. Nothing new there: he's an elderly amateur astronomer,
Roman Catholic and keen on astrology. (I don't know if he's a creationist.)
It transpired that he was trying to copy his passport as proof of ID for
a bank and as the scanner and printer weren't working he was unable to.
So I checked and while the scanner was fine, the printer was dead -
clogged heads beyond recovery.
Can you seem were I'm going yet?
To continue, so what about this bank?
"It's the Arab Bank of London," he tells me. "I have to open an account."
Now this is odd. Why would he need to open an account at the Arab bank?
Why not Nat West (for instance)?
"Ah. Well the solicitor told me that"
Solicitor? This is getting more worrysome by the minute. Who's the
solicitor?
"Some guy in London: XXXX@Yahoo.com"
Yahoo! YAHOO! What sort of law firm uses Yahoo?
At this point I was 100% sure this was a Nigerian 419 scam and my pal's
dad was in up to his neck. He was being pretty cagey so I explained that
it seemed odd. It got worse, the bank's number was listed as an 070
number - a VoIP phone which could, of course, be anywhere! While the
Arab Bank does indeed exist, the scammers were using a domain similar to
that for the email address - presumably routing it to their Yahoo
accounts. As usual, he'd been promised 10M USD provided he opened and
account.
The chain of emails was interesting because they played directly on his
religious beliefs, there's a lot of "God bless you" and so on. Worse, he
was so convinced that there really would be a bank clerk called Mohhamed
Ali (possible, sure, but highly unlikely, that he never thought for a
moment to check. Not even the awful grammar and spelling howlers rung
any suggestion that this was all a wheeze.
Gullible doesn't come into it, really, but this guy isn't daft. He just
let his faith get the better of his reason and almost got burnt because
of it.
What addled his mind is faith in astrology (which is why I mention it.)
Like thousands of others, he subscribes to a web astrologer and actually
thinks, because the email is addressed to him personally, she's written
for him and him alone. (OK, maybe he is a bit gullible.) Recently, one
of these letters promised him riches (etc.) and then the letter from the
419 scammer appeared. The rest is history.
This is why we shouldn't teach religion in school without teaching
critical thinking right alongside it. If this guy (like many others) had
actually questioned this, if only for a moment, he would have realised
that the whole thing was a scam. Critical thinking and the ability to
challenge is the one thing that separates us from the sheep. We should
never lose sight of that.
Marc
3263
JAF
Re: Re: Getting Ourselves Organised
03/10/2006 17:03:00
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:27:25 -0000, you wrote:
>Basically the Yahoo instructions for adding a signature to my
>messages are as follows:
Go to
http://groups.yahoo.com/
Top left = Yahoo! (ignore) My Yahoo! (ignore) Mail (<click this)
Top right = SMS Mail Alerts (ignore)- Upgrades -(ignore) Options (<click
this)
Centre column (Management) 5th heading, 'Signature'. Click Heading.
Voila!
Well, it works for me . . .
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
Helping to Keep Science Scientific
BCSE - http://www.blackshadow.co.uk/
3264
Rudy Vonk
Re: Re: Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times
03/10/2006 16:35:00
On 03 oct 2006, at 17:16, Mikey Brass wrote:
(snip)
> ...and
> pointing out, inspite or despite of their personal views, that many
> theologians do not see an incompatibility.
True (thank Dawg), but does that make it ESSENTIAL that we have
theologians on board? (I shall drop the capitalisation now.) Is it
essential that we have taxidermists, child psychiatrists or airline
pilots on board? If they are willing to join, fine!
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
3265
Marc Draco
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
03/10/2006 16:44:00
I agree up to a point. But only so far. Religious people (and let's not
forget the Lenny himself is religious) are necessary.
As one of those accused, I'd just like to remind everyone that it was
Michael Roberts who brought up religion in the first place by alluding
to the bible. He then proceeded to argue, without offering any reason,
that the Cohen the Observer was "a load of crap" I think was his choice
of words. No argument. Just dissent.
His running off as Rudy puts it, "in a tantrum" only proves the point.
We already have an active group that does include religious folk -
Debunk Creation, run by Lenny Flank, why would we re-invent the wheel?
I agree that we do need religious people in here - but they should be
prepared to defend their reasoning as atheists defend theirs. If someone
uses faith to guide themselves, then that's OK with me. Preaching isn't.
I am unsure if we do need Christians in fact. Theists, certainly, but
actual card-carrying Protestants are a kick in the ass away from
Creationists. Most would defend Vardy and Ediminton out of hand because
they are fellow Christians. This is precisely WHY Vardy gets where he
does. I rather doubt that most Christian people really know how extreme
Vardy and Burn really are.
How many Christians do you think would like to remove the collective act
of worship from schools? How many would seek to remove the unelected
preachers from the House of Lords?
Yet both these are reasons why we're in the pickle that we're in today.
Like Dawkins I see this as a viral idea that really belongs elsewhere.
If you ban relgion from school carte blanche, you make a big hole, but
if we study it, analyze it and get it into perspective, that's a good
thing. That's perhaps what we should do here too.
If we need Christians, we need are robust, open-minded one who won't run
away kicking and screaming the instant someone offends them.
What we need MORE are ordinary, everyday folk who might record
themselves as Christians (for example) but don't actually go around with
bibles or get paid to teach same. These people are in a much larger
majority than outspoken atheists like Prof. Dawkins and I. However, this
debate is likely to be polarised, so visiting religious folk need to
understand that quoting the bible isn't welcome.
As an aside, I had a wander over the articles on Ekklesia and the one
thing I did notice is that they have struck a balance between the
secular world and the religious world where the two run alongside.
Unlike the extremists like Stephen Green, they don't constantly refer to
the bible and they also recognize that it's the Church's job to promote
faith and the government's job to run the country. You'll note that
here, the Protestant Church still pulls at lot of government strings:
against the wishes of the majority of this country's people. Ekklesia,
if I read it right, seems to be pulling for a separation where the two
run side-by-side but remain apart. (Although that doesn't seem to work
in the US.)
Read this bit carefully. It's about time some people got up to speed on
what makes me tick.
As a young man, I was terrorized and assaulted on multiple occasions by
Christians - one was an everyday vicar others, later on came the
evangelists. I will not forgive them for that. The memories of those
events can bring me to tears even now: 30 years on and I remain haunted
by the memories. I'm damaged goods, so don't ever ask me to go easy on them.
Marc
Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> Yet again, we have had another three days of bitching about religion
> and the net result is, er, guess what! Failure.
>
> Let me lay this out very bluntly to everyone in this group.
>
> It is not a matter of tolerating or agreeing with Michael Roberts or
> any other religious person in this group.
>
> It is absolutetly ESSENTIAL that this group not only has religious
> people in it but that it is attractive to religious people.
>
> For heaven's sake doesn't anyone get this simple equation.
>
> Let me spell it out:
>
> No Religious People = Failure
>
> Let me spell it differently about what has happended ober the last week.
>
> British Humanist Association = Failure
>
> British Humanist Association + Ekklesia = Success
>
> How the hell does anyone think that we got into the national press over
> the last week. We were dependent on Christians. The BHA know it and
> worked with Ekklesia. Michael Roberts kicked off the issue in Ekklesia.
> the BHA leaked their joint letter with Ekklesia so we could take action.
> The BHA tipped off the Observer about us. Do you really think the Times
> would have published our letter had they not seen what Cohen wrote.
>
> It's three months since we hammered this out within the group and still
> some members don't get. Every damn week since me or Lenny has to point
> out the dangers or arguing religion in this group. Even with that some
> people don't get it.
>
> Every damn posting in this group that is anti-religious is DANGEROUS.
>
>
3266
Rudy Vonk
Re: Re: Getting Ourselves Organised
03/10/2006 16:31:00
On 03 oct 2006, at 17:27, Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Any ideas anyone about how to get round this absurd problem.
I'll create myself an account on YahUK and see if I can reproduce your
problem :-)
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
3267
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Getting Ourselves Organised
03/10/2006 17:46:00
I've plugged this (again) over at Richard Dawkin's site. Probably only
attract more atheists though.
3268
Roger Stanyard
Re: Getting Ourselves Organised
03/10/2006 18:23:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> I've plugged this (again) over at Richard Dawkin's site. Probably
only
> attract more atheists though.
Marc - Which one of Dawkin's sites? He's got two these days.
Roger
3269
Mikey Brass
I had some amusement
03/10/2006 18:46:00
I was at the train station, coming out to wait for a taxi. Who do I see
standing outside as well waiting but my dearly beloved YEC friend. Not
one to pass up an opportunity, I went and stood next to him.
He promptly moved away and sat on a bench.
*chuckles* I must be diseased.
3270
Mikey Brass
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
03/10/2006 19:02:00
Marc Draco wrote:
> Theists, certainly,
Agreed.
> How many Christians do you think would like to remove the collective act
> of worship from schools?
That is an argument for another list: another cause. It is also a cause
I happen not to agree with.
> If we need Christians, we need are robust, open-minded one who won't run
> away kicking and screaming the instant someone offends them.
Substitute theists for Christians here and I agree.
3271
Mikey Brass
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
03/10/2006 19:04:00
Rudy Vonk wrote:
> On 03 oct 2006, at 17:08, Mikey Brass wrote:
>
> I would like to modify a point:
> Saying evolution proves religion is wrong, using evolution as proof
> that
> atheism is correct is wrong for the purposes of this list.
>
>
> I really have no idea if this comment is a reaction to my mentioning
It was a response to, iirc, a post by Roger.
--
Best, Mikey Brass
MA in Archaeology degree, University College London
"The Antiquity of Man" http://www.antiquityofman.com
Book: "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, fossil and gene records explored"
- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
3272
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Getting Ourselves Organised
03/10/2006 18:56:00
D'oh! Sorry,
RichardDawkins.net (that's the new one I think, Roger).
Marc
Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> <BlackShadow%40yahoogroups.com>, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I've plugged this (again) over at Richard Dawkin's site. Probably
> only
> > attract more atheists though.
>
> Marc - Which one of Dawkin's sites? He's got two these days.
>
> Roger
>
>
3273
George Jelliss
Re: Leicester meeting
03/10/2006 19:56:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco
<midnight.diamond@...> wrote:
>
> George, you're obviously pretty active in Leicster (personally
> and as a group). I'm trying to get something going up here.
> Can you help?
>
Marc, what sort of something are you trying to get going? Do you
mean setting up a local Secularist/Humanist group? Or arranging some
speakers to come?
We're pretty much a 'team' at Leicester -- if you can call a group
of people all doing their own thing a 'team'. It just happens that
at the moment we all have different talents that happen to fit
together reasonably well. I do the website and spend most of my time
lately on the internet.
I've just come from posting some messages on the Dawkins Fooundation
forum (as jeepyjay), and noticed your name there.
I also joined the Ekklesia forum and was surprised to find that,
although the organisation is backing the BHA campaign against
creationism, a number of the people who post there are obviously
creationists. Though there's only one or two threads that deal with
scientific subjects -- the rest is theology. Doubt if I shall last
there for long.
3274
oeditor
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
03/10/2006 20:09:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> Yet again, we have had another three days of bitching about religion
So, what happened over these three days?
In #3186, Michael posted at length about McIntosh: a bit of theology
and a lot of geology. Both of which went over my head somewhat. This
was in reply to my posting that I'd found some McIntosh sermons on
line. The most inflammatory thing I had said was "cretinist".
#3187 Michael replied to the post in which Marc complained about the
tabloids. With a complaint about the tabloids. The most inflammatory
thing Marc had said was "The problem is they all seem to bow to
Christian (and big money) pressure rather than reporting the facts.
Active Christians are a minority in this country now, but they make an
awful row."
#3196 George mentioned that he'd tried to get the local paper to
ameliorate it's daily King James Bible slot, but it had just added
other religions as well.
#3198 Marc replied to Michael's reply about the tabloids. In the
process he described himself as a vitriolic secularist and suggested
that Ghandi and "Mother" Theresa weren't all they were cracked up to
be. He criticised the Alpha course, and wondered why Christians get
wound up about people taking Genesis literally but ignore the fact the
Exodus is pure invention.
#3201 Marc said "The majority of people in this country are not
Christians"
#3209 Michael said to Marc, "Please talk some sense" (re #3189)
#3210 Michael comes out with his 'load of crap' remark.
#3212 Marc replies to Michael's 3209: "Define "sense". I've re-read
what I wrote and it makes perfect sense to me. Which bits didn't you
understand?"
#3213 John laughs, to see such fun!
#3214 Marc replies to Michael's "crap" remark, suggesting that it was
inadequate and asking what Michael found wrong with Cohen's article.
#3216 I suggested, in the nicest possible way, that Michael might have
been drinking when he made his "crap" remark. I included an allusion
that I honestly thought he might appreciate.
#3217 John said "Knock it off, the pair of you." Which two of the
three of us he meant, I don't know. But I doubt he meant that Marc and
I should lay of Micheal.
#3218 Michael accuses Marc and Dawkins (where did he spring from?) of
"fuel[ing] every kind of nutcase creationism etc.
That seems to have been the end of it apart from soothing noises from
Roger. So far as I can see, the only thing Michael can possibly have
reason to take exception to was my remark about not watering the wine.
It was meant to be humorous but was probably misjudged. People in
glass houses, after all, shouldn't throw stones. If I've offended
Michael, I apologise. But it was neither bigoted nor intolerant, just
rude. I don't think any of our replies to Michael, listed above, come
into those categories either.
Nor, to my mind, does it constitute three days of bitching about
religion. Marc and I made 6 out of 33 posts in that period. Two a day
between us. Some flame war!
Anyway, I'm off for a bit - Amazon delivered Richard Dawklins' and Sam
Harris' books this afternoon. £16.35 the pair, all in. If anyone would
like to buy them through my web site, the 5% or so commission will be
donated to the NSS. http://www.kobweb.co.uk/special.htm
Brian
3275
George Jelliss
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
03/10/2006 20:21:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
>///
> It is absolutetly ESSENTIAL that this group not only has religious
> people in it but that it is attractive to religious people.
>
>///
>
> No Religious People = Failure
>
>///
>
> Every damn posting in this group that is anti-religious is DANGEROUS.
>
If "being attractive" to religious people means not countering when
they post religious texts or not asking them to expand on what they
mean when they say something is "rubbish" I think this is going too
far. I feel that I've been very restrained and spare in my responses
here. There are several occasions when, on a more robust disussion
forum, I would have been much more forceful. I've been trying to
remember that this is a forum dedicated to a limited and specific aim,
but there are bound to be occasions when the argument spills over to
wider issues. People must accept that this will happen, and not be too
easily upset by it.
I've recently signed on to the Ekklesia forum. The amount of
discussion there on creationism is very limited, but a surprising
number of posts are from people with clearly creationist views, or at
any rate people who are taken in by intelligent design arguments and
post-modern attitudes to "truth". The level of argument there is also,
to my way of thinking, stifled by over-politeness, and the apparent
wish not to give offence to anyone. Let's not get like that here.
3276
Timothy Chase
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
03/10/2006 21:15:00
On 03/10/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Yet again, we have had another three days of bitching about religion
> and the net result is, er, guess what! Failure.
>
> Let me lay this out very bluntly to everyone in this group.
>
> It is not a matter of tolerating or agreeing with Michael Roberts or
> any other religious person in this group.
>
> It is absolutetly ESSENTIAL that this group not only has religious
> people in it but that it is attractive to religious people.
>
> For heaven's sake doesn't anyone get this simple equation.
>
> Let me spell it out:
>
> No Religious People = Failure
>
> Let me spell it differently about what has happended ober the last week.
>
> British Humanist Association = Failure
>
> British Humanist Association + Ekklesia = Success
>
> How the hell does anyone think that we got into the national press over
> the last week. We were dependent on Christians. The BHA know it and
> worked with Ekklesia. Michael Roberts kicked off the issue in Ekklesia.
> the BHA leaked their joint letter with Ekklesia so we could take action.
> The BHA tipped off the Observer about us. Do you really think the Times
> would have published our letter had they not seen what Cohen wrote.
...
As I see it, there were communication issues - but to a large extent,
I believe they are actually to be expected, particularly at first.
It is not my purpose to criticise, but there were some statements
which I would find it understandable (from his perspective) if Michael
had taken offense. I hope Marc doesn't mind if I draw attention to a
couple of statements which he made which may have struck Michael the
wrong way - and I would like to add of course that I believe that
Michael should have been willing to point these out himself rather
than simply broadly alluding to them with the statement, "Please talk
some sense." But these weren't entirely isolated, so I am using these
statements simply for the purpose of illustration, rather than for the
intention of singling Marc out. Knowing him, I fully realise that no
offense was intended - and that he does work at getting along with
others.
As one example, the following might have seemed somewhat ad hominem
since it offered no support for its claims:
"Ghandi and Mother Teresa are worshiped as saints, yet they had hidden
agendas that makes me wonder if they were really any better than Mo."
No mention of what these hidden agendas were are given. No reason is
offered as to why whatever these presumed agendas were should reflect
on others is offered, either.
Not that any support should really have been offered: what need have
we for debating Ghandi or Mother Teresa or their presumed sainthood?
Particularly if someone is neither Hindu nor Catholic? Nevertheless,
it seemed that this was being offered as an indictment of all
religion.
Likewise, this particular statement might have struck Michael as
somewhat bigoted:
"Frankly, with the exceptions of those present here, Christians (like
so-called moderate Muslims) are the worst offenders and not routing
out the problem elements in their midst. Christians have let Tony
Blair and Dubya run roughshod over our secular rights, because it
suits your ideals. Course, when they got out of hand, it was too late
and now we're fighting for the life of proper science and governance
without intervention from the supernatural."
It was of course qualified so as not to include the religious among
us, but it was not qualified so as to exclude anyone else - and as a
result was rather sweeping - including (by default) any of the
religious who have not already joined, but who might do so in the
future. People who Michael might have wished to invite, for example.
At the same time, I can also understand the setiment being expressed:
groups (religious or otherwise) need to be self-policing - if they are
to preserve their ability to cooperate with other groups as part of
civil society.
However, as I have indicated, it would have been a good idea if
Michael had been willing to specifically point out that which he took
offense at - and made allowances for the fact that Marc has Asperger's
syndrome - and may result in his having some difficulty in picking up
on what people may take offense at. Likewise, if he is one of the
first religious individuals to enter our group and do so rather
prominently as someone who is religious, then, given the broader
context, I believe that he should expect there to be some difficulties
which will at times be particularly acute for him, but be willing to
put up with them in recognition of the fact that he will be making
things somewhat easier for individuals who share his beliefs and join
later.
Moreover, whether Michael likes it or not, many of those who are most
active in the anti-creationist movement are opposed to religion per
se, and, because of the conflicts which they have been involved in
(not the least of which is evolutionary biology vs creationism) are
used to dealing with religious individuals who are extremists and
heavily invested in the opposing side. It is only understandable if
this colours to some extent their views of those who are religious as
such.
Michael would be a valuable member, and I do hope that he reconsiders.
The religious stand the best chance of speaking to the religious (who
might otherwise be indifferent) and of being heard. Likewise, I would
like to see people make some allowances for him - and try to some
extent to avoid saying things which he might find particularly
offensive. But at the same time, I believe Michael has certain things
which he would like to accomplish and quite properly saw the BCSE as a
means of accomplishing them. For him there is the question of
priorities.
3277
freefromchrist
Re: Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times
03/10/2006 21:26:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> I am far more worried that Michael Roberts has just walked out of this
> forum because of what he sees as the bigotry in it.
>
> Roger
His loss.
Congratulations on a great letter - and in the Times no less! Don't
let anything diminish the buzz of getting in the national (and
respected) press.
For my part, although I can still read the archive through the
website, I won't be participating in the ongoing discussions here.
The recent Dawkins bashing was simply too much for me. I can't accept
a position which calls for atheists to show respect for the religious,
but does make an equal call on the christians to not be antagonistic
towards atheists.
That being said, I personally wish you well for the future. With a
little luck, exposure in the Times will give you the platform you need
to become a useful voice.
Ian.
PS> now get your domain sorted out - those Times readers will be
looking for you!
3278
oeditor
Re: Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times
03/10/2006 22:03:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "freefromchrist" <ian@...> wrote:
> His loss.
>
> Congratulations on a great letter - and in the Times no less! Don't
> let anything diminish the buzz of getting in the national (and
> respected) press.
>
> For my part, although I can still read the archive through the
> website, I won't be participating in the ongoing discussions here.
>
Still, nice that you're still watching out for us. Perhaps one day...
> The recent Dawkins bashing was simply too much for me. I can't
>accept a position which calls for atheists to show respect for the
>religious, but does make an equal call on the christians to not be
>antagonistic towards atheists.
They don't get it Ian - they actually, really, honestly, think it's
true! Not just the raving lunatics but the Michaels of this world too.
All of them! Is it any wonder that there's a bit of incomprehension on
both sides?
> PS> now get your domain sorted out - those Times readers will be
> looking for you!
Well said.
Good luck,
Brian
3279
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times
03/10/2006 22:10:00
Sorry to see you go, Ian:-(
--
Best, Mikey Brass
MA in Archaeology degree, University College London
"The Antiquity of Man" http://www.antiquityofman.com
Book: "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, fossil and gene records explored"
- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
3280
oeditor
Re: Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times
03/10/2006 22:53:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "freefromchrist" <ian@...> wrote:
> PS> now get your domain sorted out - those Times readers will be
> looking for you!
>
bcse.org.uk is gone. I'll glady buy blackshadow.org.uk for a couple of
quid, but if Blackshadow isn't to be our public face, there's not a
lot of point. Bcse.net.uk is available, but as a net puritan I don't
really approve. Still, if the British Association for the Advancement
of Science is happy to adopt a .net.uk domain against my advice, why
should I worry?
It's yours if you want it - if we're quick.
Brian
3281
Dave Oldridge
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
04/10/2006 04:52:00
On 3 Oct 2006 at 17:13, Rudy Vonk wrote:
> On 03 oct 2006, at 16:27, Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> > It is absolutetly ESSENTIAL that this group not only has
> religious
> > people in it but that it is attractive to religious people.
>
> A statement perhaps worthy of a poll...
>
> I think it is ESSENTIAL that this group has people who support
> science. If somebody's religious beliefs place limits on his
> or her commitment to the advancement of science, I find it hard
> to accept that we should modify our stance to accommodate him
> or her.
>
> Given that I am not directly affected by the threat we are
> attempting to counter (i.e. the teaching of ignorance in UK
> classrooms), I would accept without complaint an invitation to
> leave, if we decide that appeasement is the name of the game
> ;-)
The temptation for atheists in lists like these is to attack
religion in general for reasons often unrelated to the creation-
evolution debate. I've seen it over and over again. It is, of
course, VERY relevant to a list like this to attack religious
claims that are directly pertinent to the main issue. But those
claims are pretty much always also scientific claims and the way
to challenge them is with the scientific method. Creationists
will often make claims that have been disproved by science
decades and even over a century ago. Too, they often outright
lie about their motives, claiming to be promoting science when
actually they are opposing it for religious reasons. The
hypocrisy entailed in the latter behaviour is a violation of the
express precepts of most of the religious organizations that are
making the claims.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
VA7CZ
3282
Roger Stanyard
Re: Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times
04/10/2006 08:01:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "freefromchrist" <ian@> wrote:
>
> > PS> now get your domain sorted out - those Times readers will be
> > looking for you!
> >
> bcse.org.uk is gone. I'll glady buy blackshadow.org.uk for a couple of
> quid, but if Blackshadow isn't to be our public face, there's not a
> lot of point. Bcse.net.uk is available, but as a net puritan I don't
> really approve. Still, if the British Association for the Advancement
> of Science is happy to adopt a .net.uk domain against my advice, why
> should I worry?
>
> It's yours if you want it - if we're quick.
>
> Brian
>
I think we should grab Bcse.net.uk asap. Brian, if you are out of
packet, let me know.
Does anyone have any objections to using this URL?
Roger
3283
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times
04/10/2006 08:05:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> I think we should grab Bcse.net.uk asap. Brian, if you are out of
> packet, let me know.
None at all.
The other option is to copy the NCSE by having www.bcseweb.org.uk
3284
Roger Stanyard
Nick Cowan
04/10/2006 10:36:00
I've updated our web page on Nick Cowan. You can see it at
http://www.blackshadow.me.uk/index.php/Main/NickCowan (scroll down to
abut two thirds down the page).
It seems to me that Cowan is bragging that not only is he going to use
Truth in Science material but the school's biology department is as
well. Both with the support of the overall head of science.
Would anyone in the group like to help to follow this up. I think the
group is secure at the moment but you may wish to go off site and email
me.
Roger
3285
oeditor
BCSE Domain (was Re: Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times)
04/10/2006 11:23:00
> I think we should grab Bcse.net.uk asap. Brian, if you are out of
> packet, let me know.
>
> Does anyone have any objections to using this URL?
>
I'm happy to fund £2 pa on whatever domain we decide on - but it looks
as if I've slipped up. Bcse.net.uk isn't registered because there are
no .net.uk domains! Before we jump, it would be best to decide how we
are going to run our web presence - different registrars might be
better with different hosting arrangements. In particular, will we
just use the existing wiki and point bcse.whatever to it, or will the
wiki be moved to where ever the new domain is hosted? I don't know how
to point an unhosted domain to to the wiki - I've always paid a fiver
a year for "web forwarding" to do that but 1&1 don't seem to offer it.
Which brings me to the matter of hosting. IIRC, Alan has kindly
offered to let us use his space. If so, we should be ready to
contribute to his costs if we start burning up his bandwidth.
Otherwise, 1&1 offer hosting at £2 a month = £28 p.a. inc vat with
3G/month. I pay Architec £20 for 500M/month.
Alan, are you there? Your input would be very welcome!
Sorry to get all technical, folks - especially as I'm not really clued
up enough :-(
Brian
3286
Marc Draco
Re: Nick Cowan
04/10/2006 11:21:00
Cowan talks a lot - we have to be sure that he's actually doing what he
says he is, unfortunately for me, I'm too far away to go and have a look.
Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> I've updated our web page on Nick Cowan. You can see it at
> http://www.blackshadow.me.uk/index.php/Main/NickCowan
> <http://www.blackshadow.me.uk/index.php/Main/NickCowan> (scroll down to
> abut two thirds down the page).
>
> It seems to me that Cowan is bragging that not only is he going to use
> Truth in Science material but the school's biology department is as
> well. Both with the support of the overall head of science.
>
> Would anyone in the group like to help to follow this up. I think the
> group is secure at the moment but you may wish to go off site and email
> me.
>
> Roger
>
>
3287
oeditor
BCSE Domain (was Re: Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times)
04/10/2006 11:30:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> Before we jump, it would be best to decide how we
> are going to run our web presence - different registrars might be
> better with different hosting arrangements.
Which reminds me - what about the alternative board, that Ian gave us
a demo of? If we're ever going to abandon Yahoo, perhaps we should
take that into account at the same time. Even if we don't move
immediately.
Brian
3288
Mikey Brass
BCSE Domain (was Re: Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times)
04/10/2006 11:37:00
I propose www.bcseweb.org.uk which is available, registered with
oneandone.co.uk .
Alan would be able to answer on the forwarding issue.
3289
Mikey Brass
BCSE Domain (was Re: Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times)
04/10/2006 11:38:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@> wrote:
> >
> > Before we jump, it would be best to decide how we
> > are going to run our web presence - different registrars might be
> > better with different hosting arrangements.
>
> Which reminds me - what about the alternative board, that Ian gave us
> a demo of? If we're ever going to abandon Yahoo, perhaps we should
> take that into account at the same time. Even if we don't move
> immediately.
I think it would be good to have a board where the public feels they
can both post as well as interact with BCSE members.
3290
Marc Draco
Re: BCSE Domain (was Re: Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times)
04/10/2006 11:43:00
I think Ian meant phpBB which is used at the NTA website. Not perfect,
but better than this.
Far more control than bloody Yahoo and you get the messages (gasp) in
chrono order! Secularists UK use it too.
It can hide areas (topics) for members only so that snoops (and web
spiders) can't get in. Pretty good and free (open source) too.
oeditor wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> <BlackShadow%40yahoogroups.com>, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
> >
> > Before we jump, it would be best to decide how we
> > are going to run our web presence - different registrars might be
> > better with different hosting arrangements.
>
> Which reminds me - what about the alternative board, that Ian gave us
> a demo of? If we're ever going to abandon Yahoo, perhaps we should
> take that into account at the same time. Even if we don't move
> immediately.
>
> Brian
>
>
3291
Roger Stanyard
BCSE Domain (was Re: Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times)
04/10/2006 12:07:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Mikey Brass" <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Before we jump, it would be best to decide how we
> > > are going to run our web presence - different registrars might
be
> > > better with different hosting arrangements.
> >
> > Which reminds me - what about the alternative board, that Ian
gave us
> > a demo of? If we're ever going to abandon Yahoo, perhaps we should
> > take that into account at the same time. Even if we don't move
> > immediately.
>
> I think it would be good to have a board where the public feels they
> can both post as well as interact with BCSE members.
I agree with that fully.
Roger
3292
Roger Stanyard
BCSE Domain (was Re: Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times)
04/10/2006 12:06:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
>
> > I think we should grab Bcse.net.uk asap. Brian, if you are out of
> > packet, let me know.
> >
> > Does anyone have any objections to using this URL?
> >
> I'm happy to fund £2 pa on whatever domain we decide on - but it
looks
> as if I've slipped up. Bcse.net.uk isn't registered because there
are
> no .net.uk domains! Before we jump, it would be best to decide how
we
> are going to run our web presence - different registrars might be
> better with different hosting arrangements. In particular, will we
> just use the existing wiki and point bcse.whatever to it, or will
the
> wiki be moved to where ever the new domain is hosted? I don't know
how
> to point an unhosted domain to to the wiki - I've always paid a
fiver
> a year for "web forwarding" to do that but 1&1 don't seem to offer
it.
>
> Which brings me to the matter of hosting. IIRC, Alan has kindly
> offered to let us use his space. If so, we should be ready to
> contribute to his costs if we start burning up his bandwidth.
> Otherwise, 1&1 offer hosting at £2 a month = £28 p.a. inc vat with
> 3G/month. I pay Architec £20 for 500M/month.
>
> Alan, are you there? Your input would be very welcome!
>
> Sorry to get all technical, folks - especially as I'm not really
clued
> up enough :-(
>
> Brian
The current agreement we have with Alan is that we keep the web space
to a minimum by not posting any graphics on it. As we get more
professional, though, we may want to start posting some graphics
including video clips.
My personal opinion is that we need to quickly move to the format
suggested by Ian. We've got public attention more quickly that I
expected and its time to capitalise on it.
Roger
>
3293
freefromchrist
Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
04/10/2006 12:23:00
Always the way, isn't it - you decide not to participate, then there's
a thread that really needs some input..
I ran an IT support company which provided web services for seven
years. I lease and maintain my own server in a datacentre in Texas.
This stuff is what I do.
With that in mind, here's my help -
Domains - There are technically sound reasons for using a "proper" TLD
(top level domain), such as .org, .net or a proper country level
domain ( .co.uk)
.net.uk is *not* a proper tld domain, and those of us who run our own
servers see a bunch of DNS, email etc problems with these domains.
AIUI, you will also not rank so highly in Google Rank on a subdomain
like this.
If you register the domain, I would advise you to use the
bcseweb.org.uk domain - you are entitled to use a ".org"
When the domain is hosted, the domain registrar will maintain the
"name server" records - these can be pointed at an actual hosting
company. Consider hosting in the USA - they are more resilient to
freedom of speech complaints and *much* cheaper.
£25 a year is not uncommon for a good package - 1Gb of space, 5Gb of
transfer a month.
If possible, get a cPanel hoster - pretty much everything runs on
cPanel, and the control panel makes life much easier. Plesk is an
alternative, but not as mature (therefore, not as stable).
For a platform, you will need PHPBB, with Mail2Forum and a variety of
security fixes, admin tools etc. The skin can be configured to look
like your wiki, and tie the two together.
Other than that, it's all down to moderator preferences.
I will to be able to host this, but I would be perfectly willing to
both give you a quick "kick the wheels" on a prospective hosting
company to see if the package would support the website, and also to
help configure this stuff.
When No to Academies was set up, Peter Hearty made me an admin, I
connected, installed the required updates, set up mailing lists etc
(they are not used, so left idle, but the functionality is there) and
when finished, deleted my admin account, handing it over for the guys
to run.
I am prepared to do this for BCSE. mail me offlist if my help is
needed/wanted.
3294
Mikey Brass
Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
04/10/2006 12:40:00
Ian is right in raising all the points he has and I am happy to see he and
I agree on the domain name. My preference for a European provider is based
on more rapid response, although most good providers are resiliant
anyways.
In that capacity, apart from you being a member, your offer of hosting is
very tempting to me indeed and I would recommend that Roger seriously
considers it.
As an aside for the list, if anyone is wondering where my recommendations
are coming from, I am both an archaeologist and IT systems administrator.
3295
jon_12091
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
04/10/2006 12:50:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
> What we need MORE are ordinary, everyday folk who might record
> themselves as Christians (for example) but don't actually go around
with
> bibles or get paid to teach same. These people are in a much larger
> majority than outspoken atheists like Prof. Dawkins and I. However,
this
> debate is likely to be polarised, so visiting religious folk need to
> understand that quoting the bible isn't welcome.
Unfortunately these are exactly the people that the wedge was always
aimed, add together a generally poor understanding of science amongst
the populace with a dash of mistrust for "modern amoral secular
society" (many such people are small 'c' conservatives anyway)plus
some dressed up psuedo-science (looks like science, sounds like
science...) and you have a functioning PR campagain to rubbish modern
evolutionary biology and geosciences. Now, you can tell them that the
science is wrong but that will only take you half way (assuming you
can actually communicate the debate effectively too them in the first
place), because it still leaves you with a wispering campaign from the
creationist gallery, in other words to finish their stupidity you
need to cut their theological legs out from underneath them, their
theology being for the most part distinctly unrepresentative and in
places downright wrong.
As for Dawkins, his Chair is in the public understanding of science,
for the last few years at least I have heard nothing from him in the
media on that subject and seems only to turn up when he's punting his
latest book. In many ways behaviour not too dissemler to that of
the "fellows" of the DI churning out pulp for their fan base.... I'd
go as far as to say David Attenbourgh probably achieves more to close
out the 'wedge' in this country with an hours voiceover than Dawkins
has ever achieved....
Evolution = Aetheism is a meaningless pejorative regardless of which
side of the debate says it. Militant aetheism is living in the
precisiously the same dreamland as fundamental thesist's of any
stripe. The world is full of diverse views its a pluralist society or
nothing....
3296
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
04/10/2006 13:16:00
> If "being attractive" to religious people means not countering when
> they post religious texts or not asking them to expand on what they
> mean when they say something is "rubbish" I think this is going too
> far.
Dudes, creationism isn't science, whether there's a god or not. It
doesn't brelong in science classrooms, whether there's a god or not.
Creationists are dishonest evasive deceptive liars, whether there is
a god or not.
It simply doesn't matter whether there is a god or not.
So quit fighting over it. It doesn't help. It DOES hurt.
Our job is to fight creationists. It's NOT our job to stamp out
religion, or to correct religious "rubbish", or to solve world peace,
or to end the Arab-Israeli conflict, or to end the Northern Ireland
Troubles, or to do ANYTHING ELSE.
Our job is to fight creationists. Full stop.
Anything else is a distraction.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
3297
freefromchrist
Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
04/10/2006 13:17:00
> In that capacity, apart from you being a member, your offer of
hosting is
> very tempting to me indeed and I would recommend that Roger seriously
> considers it.
Well, I had offered this previously - I now think it would be better
for BCSE to have independent hosting, rather than using my server.
for one thing, it would mean that www.scottishatheistcouncil.org.uk
would have the same IP address as the BCSE website, something you
might not wish to be the case.
I'll also be quite forthwright about it - the Dawkins bashing is a
real issue for me. Richard is one of my personal heroes, and I really
feel that I can't find it in myself to be paying for and supporting a
webserver that people then use to have a pop at him...
At the same time, I would not dream of being in the situation where I
was complaining about the content on a site I hosted - that would be
an unacceptable situation for all concerned.
It's easier to just get a seperate hoster, and I'll provide the setup
know-how. Easier on my conscience!
With a quick check, I found these guys: (no connection, just looks
like a decent company)
http://www.bigbluehost.com/hosting.html
The bottom package there would cost about £20 a month from a UK
supplier, instead, it's $43USD for the year - and has stacks of growth
space too.
These hosting companies tend to have a shared administrator in the
data centre, so, ten or so hosting companies will pay for a bit of
admin time, and he's available to go restart the server, run backups,
whatever - the support has always been good enough for me: you do get
some downtime from time to time, an hour or so here and there, but
nothing too bad (and basically, what you get for the money -better
uptime costs a lot more!)
The US sites are dramatically cheaper because of the better telecoms
infrastructure - London LINX or Amsterdam AMSEX datacenters are an
order of magnitude more expensive than The Planet in Texas to run
fibre into, and it shows.
I.
3298
Roger Stanyard
Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
04/10/2006 14:07:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Mikey Brass" <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Ian is right in raising all the points he has and I am happy to see
he and
> I agree on the domain name. My preference for a European provider
is based
> on more rapid response, although most good providers are resiliant
> anyways.
> In that capacity, apart from you being a member, your offer of
hosting is
> very tempting to me indeed and I would recommend that Roger
seriously
> considers it.
>
> As an aside for the list, if anyone is wondering where my
recommendations
> are coming from, I am both an archaeologist and IT systems
administrator.
>
Just as an aside, I assume that you mean a European provider is
better because of the latency problem with using servers in the USA.
I have to say thta it is about six-seven years ago I last looked at
that problem so I amy be talking out of the proverbial backside.
I have no technical background in these matters so I have to defer to
both Ian's and Mikey's judgement. However, Ian has already
demonstrated what can be done and I am happy with that as a moderator.
I'm willing to act as a moderator as an and when we move to a new
platform. I assume that the platform also allows for multiple
moderators, which seems to me to be essential as we begin to get
established.
The only issue I have is the size of the final bill. We don't have a
budget and I don't want us to end up with a bill of £200 plus split
between three or four individuals.
Roger
3299
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
04/10/2006 14:24:00
The cost of the hosting package on oneandonce.co.uk would come to around
£80 total per annum.
3300
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
04/10/2006 14:24:00
Correction: http://www.oneandone.co.uk