View Thread

Atheists Today » Taking it easy » YouTube
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
g0at
RayvenAlandria
Tim, I believe you when you say you hate the RRS now. I never said I didn't. I'm very glad you walked away from those morons.

But I'm still mad at you for hurting my feelings. The world is not going to stop spinning just because I'm mad at you or just because you hurt my feelings though.
 
RayvenAlandria
I guess after I left and once Nikki got her cam she did more than audio-only porn. Here's an interesting post that popped up written by zombie (Ed)



http://www.ration...ymous/6324


Suggestion for stickam chat room

Hello all,

I'm hoping to start a conversation, not a flame war, about the chat room we all hang out in. Late last night (my time), anon and goat were joking with each other, all in good fun, calling each other gay. Then mikey the gay atheist showed up and was insulted by people using the term gay as an insult. A conversation started which resulted in mike leaving in disgust. Goat and anon felt they did nothing wrong since they had meant no harm.

Personally, I can see how both sides looked at it, but if it had been me, I would have taken down the comments simply out of politeness, if I had ever made them in the first place.

As far as I understand, the stickam chat room is supposed to be a friendly place where we atheists can hangout and talk. It didnít seem that way to me last night, I got the impression that mike was genuinely insulted.

Now, since we have already made some rules about what people can and canít do in the chat room (remember Karla?), I would like to propose we figure out a code of conduct so that we 1) donít send away people who want to support the RRS and 2) Donít get our collective asses kicked off of stickam.

Frankly, I think since we made rules for modesty after several of the ladies who werenít flashing people were disgusted by some of the ones who were (Iím thinking of Karla and fyre86). It would only be fair to have standards of conduct that make everyone feel welcome.

SO, do you guys think this would be simple manners? Or a way to cripple the free flow of debate?
Ed

Morte alla tyrannus et dei


 
g0at
Listen RayvenAlandria, I really have no stigma against those in the military service. I also have nothing against gays either. Do I have to post up a bunch of videos where I support homosexuality?

I don't think that you were implying that...Anyways, I think I actually do remember that day. Me and anon were poking fun at each other and someone was mad because we used gay in a bad light. Whatever... I really don't know what to say.

I think we got off on the wrong foot. I know that I DO have a negative stigma towards the RRS and you probably had me associated with them in your mind for good reason. I want you to know that I have changed as a person, and I am much different than I was. There is nothing to fear.
 
IGExpandingPanda
RayvenAlandria wrote:
It wasn't you who told me g0at was a member of the RRS academy staff.


I didn't discuss the subject with you in e-mail. I didn't, near as I can see, bring up g0at on dawkins or RnR. I have to admit I rather thought he was part of the RRS Adademy but obviously that thought was incorrect.

I never gave g0at much attention to be honest.


It was another former RRS member who also flew the coop and now hates them. We were chatting one night about the scams RRS has pulled and we started talking about the academy. I asked him who was involved in the scam and he rattled off a few names, one of which was g0at's. He said the classes had something to do with EMT training and something else.


Oh yeah. Now I'm remembering. It was either CPR or EMT, I'm not sure which. That's where this idea came from. But yes, they were considering offering "medical" classes, which fits with their personality in the fact that no bugger that's involved in the squad is remotely qualified.


I don't think this person would purposely lie, so if g0at was not in fact giving any of the *academy* classes/training, I will assume someone at the RRS claimed he was or they were trying to talk him into it and the person I spoke with was told incorrect info. It's not really all that important, I was just curious if it was true.


That sounds reasonable. A good rule of thumb is if there is incorrect information, odds are it was propigated by the RRS core. They are rather good at being vague and cryptic and not addressing anyone who gets the wrong impression, so they can come back and say "we never said that (exactly)."



ETA; I just realized something. It's possible that they placed g0at's videos in the academy section and that's why people thought he was a part of the academy. Since that whole section of the website is gone, I can't go check to see if that might have been the case. They did give g0at his own special section to do a "g0at show" and post his videos, perhaps that's what people were referring to. They may have assumed he was part of the RRS staff.


I can't speak for their Adademy shit. The ONLY part of the Adademy I saw was Rook's power point presentation. They claim other people involved including Nikki so there is a good chance it was bigger than what it appeared to be. However Nikki doesn't respond on her YT or MySpace accounts, likely due to the number of people asking her if she masturbated for BS and the kiddies.
 
IGExpandingPanda
RayvenAlandria wrote:
I guess after I left and once Nikki got her cam she did more than audio-only porn. Here's an interesting post that popped up written by zombie (Ed)



http://www.ration...ymous/6324


Frankly, I think since we made rules for modesty after several of the ladies who werenít flashing people were disgusted by some of the ones who were (Iím thinking of Karla and fyre86). It would only be fair to have standards of conduct that make everyone feel welcome.




I don't know for a fact that Nikki was "flashing" people. I do know for a fact that she wore low cut shit and darthjosh made a video collection of her cleavage, which was then turned into a fridge magnet. There was also some chatroom logs posted on one of the Christian critic sites, Frank Walton IIRC. She was 18 at the time so nothing "illegal" but she was still a teen showing off to 30 something pervs, and that at the very least is tacky under the company logo.

Flashing isn't too far fetched, but I have no evidence to support this.


Now the fyre86 posts are popping up.

Link to Nikki's rack promoting their t-shirts

bp0.blogger.com/_6-Uxg3BTLvg/R3wEPlA8yyI/AAAAAAAAAKQ/m9aJvaKsifI/s320/rrsnikkipink.jpg
Edited by IGExpandingPanda on 12/02/2008 04:03
 
RayvenAlandria
Well, zombie (Ed) is a really nice guy and I've never seen him lie, so if he says Nikki flashed the stickam room, I believe she flashed the stickam room. Of course,if you don't know him and see no verifiable evidence, you can choose not to believe Nikki flashed the stickam room and I would totally understand that point of view.

Tim, I do not believe you are anti-gay, I believe you and anon were probably just acting stupid that night. Most likely you should have stopped when you realized someone was getting upset, but I wouldn't think to label you a homophobe based on one incident. Your brother or best friend is gay, (I forget which, but you told me one night in stickam that either your brother or your friend was gay), so I have never considered you a homophobe. That's one of the things I liked about you.
 
IGExpandingPanda
RayvenAlandria wrote:
Well, zombie (Ed) is a really nice guy and I've never seen him lie, so if he says Nikki flashed the stickam room, I believe she flashed the stickam room. Of course,if you don't know him and see no verifiable evidence, you can choose not to believe Nikki flashed the stickam room and I would totally understand that point of view.


Well, it's not that I choose not to believe it. Obviously my mind is open to the idea. I don't think it's far fetched, I don't claim it didn't happen. I just won't say it's a fact until I at least hear from someone that CLEARLY makes the claim, and even then, it would help to see the tits. I doubt anyone would step forward. It seems pretty humiliating to have that whole masturbation thing on ED.

It seems a pretty credible claim
1) We have the prior unverified claims of masturbation
2) We have the fridge magnet
3) We have the Frank Walton report from the Stickam channel.

It's not far fetched that she flashed her tits on Stickam. I'm just not willing to accept it as "fact" without more evidence.
Edited by IGExpandingPanda on 12/02/2008 04:04
 
RayvenAlandria
Well, considering no one in the thread accused Ed of lying, we could assume they agree it happened. At least some of them must have been present when it occurred.

You're right though, no one seems to want to admit they were there when things like that happened. Some of those same people were in the room during Nikki's audio masturbation episode and they have yet to come forward and talk about it. They may not even know it's a subject of discussion or about the ED article, so it's possible they aren't actively trying to hide the truth, they just don't know or care than anyone is talking about it these days.

The only reason it's even important is to demonstrate that Brian is a manipulative jerk who preys on young, impressionable women and that's he's bad for the public face of Atheism. He uses everyone he comes in contact with. He tried to talk we stickam room females into doing a sexy calendar but the idea fell through. Luckily.

He exploits women for his own financial gain.
Edited by RayvenAlandria on 12/02/2008 04:00
 
IGExpandingPanda
RayvenAlandria wrote:
Well, considering no one in the thread accused Ed of lying, we could assume they agree it happened. At least some of them must have been present when it occurred.


1) Other people who witnessed the event said nothing
2) Other people who witnessed the event wasn't aware of Ed's post
3) Other people didn't give a crap about Nikki and who-ever's breasts
4) Other people didn't even see Ed's post

I can think of at least 3 other plausable explations. Look, I understand where you are comming from. Given the Squad's history, it's a credible accucation. I don't disbelieve it, just not enough evidence for me to say it's fact.


The only reason it's even important is to demonstrate that Brian is a manipulative jerk who preys on young, impressionable women and that's he's bad for the public face of Atheism. He uses everyone he comes in contact with. He tried to talk we stickam room females into doing a sexy calendar but the idea fell through. Luckily.

He exploits women for his own financial gain.


He exploits everyone for his own gain, period. I mean, Kelly is a good example. She has her own self esteme issues, which seems to be par for someone who BS claims was in an abusive relationship with someone who got custody of the kids. Dawkins is another. Come to think about it, he did have one YT video where they were discussing fan mail and Kelly suggested Sapient didn't have chicks that wanted to sleep with him, and he said young girls. Well, I'm sure that is somewhat normal in any case of pseudo fame.
 
Cynic
RayvenAlandria wrote:
Hmmm, interesting way to word things Cynic. I think I understand you much better now.


I haven't learned anything new about you at all, so I guess you have me at a disadvantage.
 
IGExpandingPanda
To be honest I only skimmed though most of this thread but I can say what more I want from goat.

-Stop being a foofoo head
That is to say let's say someone says something that is inaccurate. Don't presume they are a liar. Not everything is part of some grand conspricy. I can understand being defensive, but sweet jesus man. I honestly thought you were part of the Acadamy. Obviously I was mistaken. I never told anyone that you were mind you, but this is something that I heard though the rumor tree.

You were once a formal member, and now you broke away from the Squad. Great! Woo hoo! Do keep in mind that the RRS doesn't keep a real membership list. If they did, they couldn't claim 10,000+ members. If someone thinks your still a member, they are not out to get you. It's the fact that you have messages on the site, you've been sited in the news letter, you do have a history with them. I'll grant you your history is 1.5 years old, but there is NO way to search the RRS site by username. The ONLY way to search the site is with google which doesn't permit searching by date. And this presumes someone cares enough to look, and if they did in google the first three hits are:
1) your youtube
2) your youtube video "pale blue dot"
3) RRS - links to your videos
 
RayvenAlandria
Apparently I am still an RRS member. I had no idea my login was still active since I haven't tried to use it in over a year. g0at may have a valid member name as well, if so, we're BOTH technically still RRS members. Grinead: Yuck.

When I did a search using that "search this site using google" link, it popped up many pages of g0at's RRS stuff. They still have his videos logged as part of the RRS site. If g0at hadn't told me himself that he was not part of RRS I would assume that he is based on what I saw. I think the RRS keeps stuff like that around because they want to look as though they have more members and contributors than they really do.

I think a number of people did think g0at was part of the *academy*. I was told he was, but since I wasn't sure if it were true I did not state it as a fact. I'm glad to find out it was not true.
 
Bob of QF
RayvenAlandria wrote:
Apparently I am still an RRS member. .


Do they not have a method of self-deleting the membership, then?

That would be ONE way to inflate "membership".... <eyeroll>
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
RayvenAlandria
I'm not sure Bob, I didn't even bother to check. When I left the RRS almost two years ago I just stopped hanging out in the stickam room or posting on the fora, I guess I never bothered to delete my account. I didn't realize my user name was even active until I logged in to do a search on g0at. I think I'll leave my user name active in case I ever have some reason to look for something there.

Truthfully, I suspect that 98% of their membership are people who never go there anymore. From what the fora looked like, only a few people are actually posting, so their real membership may be less than twenty people.
 
Bob of QF
RayvenAlandria wrote:
I'm not sure Bob, I didn't even bother to check. When I left the RRS almost two years ago I just stopped hanging out in the stickam room or posting on the fora, I guess I never bothered to delete my account. I didn't realize my user name was even active until I logged in to do a search on g0at. I think I'll leave my user name active in case I ever have some reason to look for something there.

Truthfully, I suspect that 98% of their membership are people who never go there anymore. From what the fora looked like, only a few people are actually posting, so their real membership may be less than twenty people.


Less than 20? Wow, that's quite a come-down.

I'm like you, though, I have old mouldy memberships all over the place, which I no longer frequent.

My tastes change, I move on, I don't bother to write.... <grin>

But, it's amazing that they don't purge inactive members, though. It does slow down the software somewhat, I'd imagine. (but in truth, I dunno if it matters, I've never set up BB software).

Some of them do provide me amusement, though, when looking at my old posts, and see what I was thinking then, and how I've evolved over the past 3 years.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
IGExpandingPanda
Bob of QF wrote:
RayvenAlandria wrote:
Apparently I am still an RRS member. .


Do they not have a method of self-deleting the membership, then?

That would be ONE way to inflate "membership".... <eyeroll>


You can ask for your account to be deleted. They don't reccomend you do this this effectively burns the bridges.

Also you presume that the forum is the exclusive membership roll. They also have YT channel. In all fairness as of today 12,937 subscribers. I'd "guess" they got 3000 in the past year.

Reasons to subscribe to their channel
1) Dawkins/Hitchens/etc... videos
2) Other peep's videos - Nick Gisburn videos made their way to the RRS channel and a few others, like a couple from thunderf00t.
3) Their own stuff, which would include the infamous uri geller vid, their debate with the Bananna boys, and other misc stuff.

(1) I don't think they've been to an AAI since December. They haven't interviewed anyone "interesting" in the past year, so this is moot.
(2) I'm not sure why they stopped uploading other peep's vids. I presume they have 2 undisputed DMCA complaints, with the 3rd being Uri Geller which they settled.
(3) In the past year, they uploaded 7 videos, out of their grand total of 187.
a) Christians stop Hurricane Ike with Prayer!
Cool Kelly O'Connor (Kellym78) segments of interview [FUCI radio]
c) Rook Gives Lecture on Jesus Mythicism [FSGP]
d) Michael Shermer at FSGP part 2
e) Michael Shermer at FSGP
f) Christians to be reminded their God doesn't exist for free!
g) The Four Horsemen #1 Order the DVD

If they were able to maintain (1), (2), and/or (3) in any combination, I'd say there are good reasons to subscribe to the channel. You can unsubscribe but what's the point since they only uploaded 7 videos in the past year.

But this is a tangent. The centeral issue is how they define members. They don't have a defination of members. They "should" have some clue how many paying subscribers they have. When they booted Graydon out of the club, they made it clear that everyone was "Rational Response Squad"

http://www.ration...ent-171438

- RRS would like to officially disassociate itself from Greydon. However, ironically Greydon commented that "I'm still RRS because RRS is everyone" and in some respects he is right. Calling yourself part of our team doesn't necessitate being a paid member, or a board member, or anything other than the acceptance of our ideas and how to inject them into society. It should be noted however that we never condone physical violence against another, let alone people who built your career as a means of controlling a situation.


This paragraph is telling since all one really needs to be a "member" of the RRS is acceptance of "their" ideas and how they promote them, which is pretty much anyone who has belief in god(s) is a nutjob.

Their site has been around about 2 years now, and any site that gets used to a degree will easily get 10,000 accounts. But since they are not clear what it takes to be an actual member, nor are they willing to share how many paid subscriptions they get, well, it's rather meaningless.


That being said, there is no real way to look at the site and get a membership list. It just can't be done, not that I'm aware anyway.

But needless to say their 20,000+ member, or even 10,000+ member is greatly inflated
 
Cynic
The fundamentals of their membership rolls are strong.
 
RayvenAlandria
Most Atheists who frequent online sites have active user names at many sites they don't actually participate in. Hell, I have more than one user name at some sites because I forgot I already had one and made a second one. Also, I think many Atheist sites have a collection of religious groups who watch them and those people also have accounts. I don't think they are what you'd call fans though.

If their fanbase were large, Brian wouldn't have had to go get a real job and they wouldn't be broke. I'm sure they get new members from time to time. Most of those people sign up, look around a bit, and then leave to never return.

In the online world, "member" and "fan" are not synonymous. To post one has to sign up, so your *haters* also have to become members. That doesn't mean you're successful or popular. IMO, the only kind of person the RRS retains as a *fan* is someone with obvious social and emotional problems. Stable people take a closer look and high-tail it out of there.
 
IGExpandingPanda
RayvenAlandria wrote:
Most Atheists who frequent online sites have active user names at many sites they don't actually participate in. Hell, I have more than one user name at some sites because I forgot I already had one and made a second one. Also, I think many Atheist sites have a collection of religious groups who watch them and those people also have accounts. I don't think they are what you'd call fans though.


Well, in all fairness to the RRS, they are big sticklers to the one account per user policy. BS activlly patrols the userlog and makes sure that users are not violating that rule. If a user forgets their password, he offers verbal herpes on the subject, like why the hell they don't use I forgot my password feasture and how users are idiots because they can't see it. I guess they "could" be idiots, but missing any link on a badly designed sight is not a sign of stupidity.




RayvenAlandria wrote:
If their fanbase were large, Brian wouldn't have had to go get a real job and they wouldn't be broke. I'm sure they get new members from time to time. Most of those people sign up, look around a bit, and then leave to never return.


Well, they had a good year last year. They got on TV, they got a ton of people to access their site. I'm sure they sold a ton of t-shirts and according to BS he made 50k last year. I don't know if this is true, but it's nothing to sneeze at. But if he did make 50k last year it was by offering content. They've not had a guest in over a year, they only have 7 new YT videos. They maintained their blogs though Rook deleted most of his INCLUDING the Academy.

It really is a huge downward spiral, which would only end if they lost their house.
 
Sinny
From what I remember new members have to pay to join, I think. THe regular members don't have to keep paying anymore. I think Briand did a one time fee a while back for certain members during a certain time limit like a week to join as a permanent paid member. But anyone else joining after that itme period has to pay. Something like that. That's why I think it's one reason, at least, they are really strict about having multiple registrations per person.
 
Jump to Forum: