Survived. We did it. Atheist Con complete. Did I plug this site enough? Really? Really? :p
Sheesh, sorry about that… it’s mostly because so much of my references and resources are hosted either here or on the podcasts, that it leads me to auto-answer ‘why yes! I have done X and you can read it at…. urghrh…‘
I have done too much online resource-collation for far too long. Enough that I’m going to have to stop and go over the last six months and re-catalog or something. Make a new category for little kittens.
Sue-Ann Post reads my stuff in the Aust Skeptic!! WAHHHH!
Sorry, just had to say that. Bloody hell, incredible.
Small news updates:
- When I was on the stage doing the Q&A for the last speaker on Sunday, the second questioner in the middle of the auditorium had people jeer at her, despite Dawkins and I requesting to let her have her say. I just got an ‘GAC 2010: Public apology for shameful audience rudeness‘ from someone in response to that, that they said they’d be willing to have it posted anywhere. Gosh. I think just sending it as a gesture (and them admitting that they went to the lady herself and apologised in person) is a pretty good start overall…
- PZ is getting more used to Vegemite. Dawkins does it better. I think it kind of shows that the wild atheist rep is well and truly bust when our excitement hinges around ‘we just had a WHOLE jar!!’ at a party.
- Not going to namedrop from this point onwards, sorry.
- LOVED working with the backstage and frontstage and sidestage and all them crew and the wonderful Stuart who was just such a gentleman.
- I now know what a lapel-mic is!
- www.davethehappysinger.com
- It sobers me to realise how easy it is to suggest ‘oh, use the internet, use technology’ as a solution when someone points out that in their country, the internet is for the rich, elite only and the majority of their readers are in unsupported areas and books are the only means of disseminating information -- and what if publishers won’t publish you because of a Fatwa?
- I got used to the conference hall colour-scheme but gosh, it’s bright.
- If Wheels and Dollbaby see photos of me, I wouldn’t say no to sponsorship? :p
- Now going to go for a quick jog to get rid of excess energy to the tune of ‘Buffalo Stance’ by Neneh Cherry
Before I go -- someone has seen this and he found it REALLY funny. 
{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }
Oh my. I left at the start of the Q & A with Dawkins. Sounds like I missed some unpleasantness from the crowd. Very sad.
Also, I keep waiting for this website to crash. Maybe when the atheist hordes awake from their drunken stupor tomorrow…
It was disappointing to hear the questioner howled down, but I was heartened by the (from where I sat) sudden quietness afforded the questioner, after you and Richard asked for her to be heard.
Come to think of it, the questioner showed more courage than I think I could muster, to be so outspoken (and reasonably outspoken at that; there was no outright vitriol from her, or anything that deserved the hostility that she was given) and she was brave to effectively stand alone in such a large number of people who sharply disagreed with her.
I hope that the questioner would take away with her more than just those awful few seconds.
Essentially, from my perspective, it was kind of like this (not verbatim):
Woman: Hello, I’d like to start that I’m a Christian, I believe in the one God, the true faith and I dedicate myself to the truth of creationism. My question to Professor Dawkins is as follows. What is DNA, what is it made of….
(boos, few jeers – I step forward and wave my hands to silence people; Prof Dawkins steps forward and says into mic…)
Dawkins: No, let her finish, it is her turn for a question, she has every right.
Woman: (continues) What is DNA, what is it made of, where did it come from?
Prof Dawkins proceeds to give the kind of overview of DNA that you wish you could use in a science classroom to show to advanced biology students.
Woman by then has quietly sat down (she didn’t appear to be wanting to do what I thought she might do, which was respond further to Dawkins) – and I direct to the front row for the next question.
That was essentially it.
A momentary lapse of class on behalf of some of the attendees, though fortunately not yourself or Professor Dawkins. An easy, but regrettable, mistake. I’m glad the woman’s question was answered seriously.
We can still make fun of the antipsychiatry guy, though. Right?
> I hope that the questioner would take away with her more than just those awful few seconds.
I am the person who went to her and apologised for the behaviour of others. I seriously doubt she will remember the grace of anyone at the convention; she stood up at an invitation to speak in a crowd she suspected would be hostile, and then had that suspicion instantly confirmed.
Regardless how momentary the lapse was, that’s what is going to stick with her; and that’s what she is going to report to others who will cry it from the rooftops. I think a simple “whoops” isn’t going to cut it, and I hope some of the organisers see fit to publish an acknowledgement of her experience and a pretty good apology.
I think you and Richard handled it really well, and defused the situation.
I didn’t see the questioner (not easily) from where I was sitting, so I’d no clue, other than her voice, to gauge her tone, attitude, etc. though I thought she was trying to ask a question which she perhaps thought was not answerable (where did DNA come from? – she may have been implying just a one word, three letter answer).
Overall it was a fabulous weekend, and worth every cent of the ticket price. The organisation of the weekend was very thoughtful and executed smoothly. (I would not have thought that the sound and PowerPoint wrinkles on stage wouldn’t have been predictable.)
More than once I was smiling, even if it was simply because I was there.
The MCs, I thought, could not have been better. (Congratulations.)
I was sitting in the same row as the woman in question, and whilst there were many people who ‘jeered’ at her ridiculous question, there were just as many who were ‘shhh’-ing, even as PodBlack and RD were calming things down. In fairness to the crowd, her question was a deliberate attempt to confirm her expectations of them & to take valuable time that RD could have used answering an intelligent question. Oh and she was completely deluded. This was confirmed for us by her reaction when she re-joined her friends and said something along the lines of ‘see, I he doesn’t know the answer’. I am waiting for this claim to turn up somewhere in the christian media/blogs.
PZ has made a comment on his site too about it?
By the way, I loved your presentation (you sound like Judith Lucy btw!!) and I know I am going to love your blog now I know it is here. Great work.
Thank you!!
And thanks also to Carol – I recognise in reflection that I was mentioning the site too much (but hey, it’s where the research I’ve done is found!) – and felt a little annoyed with myself after. Feedback with ‘this is why I thought so’ is really useful, so thanks for making that clear. The internet can sometimes be harsh with responses people make (another presenter sent me a link to where someone ranted at them online with what was CLEARLY just sour-grapes that it wasn’t oh-so-wonderful THEM on the stage instead!), so it’s nice you all took the time. 
Judith Lucy – a Perth-girl like myself!
Just popping in to say I ABSOLUTELY loved your presentation! It was a bit shorter than everyone else’s? Great to-the-point on your research and I liked the way you pointed out ‘everyone is able to fall for bias, deception, cognitive issues’ and all that. Did you post a link to the funny church video anywhere?
You said on Twitter that you said your blog/podcasts too often (true) but at least I know where to find the stuff that backs up your points. Cheers and hope you’ll be doing TAM Australia?
I think PZ sums the situation up nicely, although I reached a similar conclusion from a different perspective. It was a big auditorium and I was miles from the woman…all I heard was the collective sighs and murmurings of anticipation of the pending question and inevitable derailment of the fascinating speaker. It was a quiet auditorium and the volume increased quickly, however it was very short-lived and I did not hear any howling, boos or jeers (this is not to say they did not occur…I just didn’t have such a recollection nor was I close).
Although, as already noted, it was fortunate turn of events. Whilst 99.9% of the audience probably already understood the account of DNA & RNA…for some reason it was a valuable experience hearing it calmly delivered by Dawkins.
I can’t thank the organisers, speakers, audience and MCEC staff enough for the marvelous convention. Great job guys! I hope there are many more such events.
Yeah, that’s all well and good, but what about Dopamine ???
Ah ha!
The paper I had back in the dressing-room is here:
I very much doubt the gentleman in the audience will be bothering to email me to get a copy though. :/
Dopamine, Paranormal Belief, and the Detection of Meaningful Stimuli by Krummenacher, Mohr. Haker and Brugger (2009).
I was there and suspect that she knew exactly what she was doing and got exactly what she wanted. At the end of RD’s answer he stated that it is not known how RNA went out and DNA came in. There is a lack of knowledge in this regard. She said some thing that resulted in him pointing out the lack of knowledge. That is what the questioner wanted to hear because that is where creationists place god. They are forever looking for gaps in knowledge and stating “see thats where god fits in”. Am I being a conspiracy theorist? The crowd were rude and it disappointed me to hear it.
Without reading PZ’s post, I can say this; the smug, all-knowing tone of the woman who asked the question along with the way she said “Mr. Dawkins”, rather than either Professor or just Richard, made me think she was deliberately trying to antagonize Professor Dawkins. I didn’t boo, but I did facepalm. I may be wrong, of course, but it’s certainly how it seemed.
I’m glad that Dawkins did answer the question superbly, though. Turned it into something usefully educational for us all.
Is there anything else around about that anti-psychiatry fellow? That was damnably weird, though I thought Grayling handled it well, aided by your good self, of course.
*After reading PZ’s post, I maintain my point.
Ack, I tried to write a comment and the tubes ate it. TWICE. I don’t think Safari works very well with your site.
Essentially I said what Stephen has said above. She very deliberately called Richard Mr, rather than Professor, Dawkins and took great pains to make her religiosity known. I’m not certain, but I assumed she was a Creationist trying to antagonize him.
I didn’t boo, but I did facepalm. Richard’s answer was superb, though.
“The crowd were rude and it disappointed me to hear it.”
No they were not, they asked her to go read up on it.She was wasting everyone’s time on this particular occasion by asking a question she could have googled in 10 seconds from home.(Yes I know, she might just have thought she might trip him up with her question)
The fact that it ended up being a great Biology lesson for all 2500 of us doesnt change that.
“I very much doubt the gentleman in the audience will be bothering to email me to get a copy though. ”
Uhm, yeah, my feeling was we had our fair share of cringeworthy Q&A questions, so much for “atheists are the smarter ones”…:-)
Sorry if that ended up posting a dozen times. Stupid Safari.
What about that Anti-Psychiatry guy? Anyone else think that was totally bizarre?
Grayling’s answer was great, though.
Sorry, Daniel! Some things go straight to spam and get auto-deleted and I never read them, but this one did get through!
‘Anti-psychiatry guy’ was the second questioner for my talk, hence my saying ‘are you making a post-modernist answer?’ to his rather odd, convoluted question… I tried to give him as much chance as I could, but there’s only so much listening one can do before you realise that there’s no answer you’re going to give that will satisfy them. Hence my ‘science = science, religion = religion’ summary. If he has that much of a problem with the study of the mind, he might have a better chance of writing his own essays on it. :/ Yes, Grayling is a great presenter and wonderfully approachable. 
Yes they were, the crowd were rude.
“No they were not, they asked her to go read up on it”
I have to say that’s a pretty convenient interpretation. But those who said that were pretty silent in comparison to the ‘boo’ing’, at least from my perspective.
I agree with PZ, a little incivility isn’t a bad thing sometimes, and it probably wouldn’t of gotten on my nerves otherwise… but the person didn’t even finish her silly question before people let her have it, and the reaction went just a bit too far.
There was definitely an element of what I, and many others at the convention, have called unnecessary rudeness. At least from where I was sitting up the front – hearing at least one loud aggressive “shuuut up” …. “next question” and even a less loud expletive or two.
Phillip Adams had an interesting take on this sort of thing (although I didn’t agree with all of his talk)… where we should be ‘pitying’ these people over anything else.
Above all, there is often a much greater form of ridicule that can be found in using intellectual, detailed responses to dismiss (but answer) stupid questions, and Richard harnessed it greatly…
Either way, it was a minor spoil on an excellent convention, and many congrats on the presentation Kylie – had a great time.
Hi Kylie,
Just back from the conf, where I learned about this site (and very much enjoyed your paper). For what it’s worth, my perspective on the Dawkins questioner was that she was indeed laying a trap, but that it was less dependent on RD’s answer than on his – and our – reaction. If I’m right about that, then shouting her down, or dismissing her question, would have played right into her hands: ”behold, the putatively tolerant atheists are really just closed-minded bigots’.
In any event, I thought you two handled it perfectly; taking the sincerity of her question at face value, and giving it a detailed and respectful answer, was absolutely the correct strategy, regardless of whethner she was in fact sincere in looking for an answer, or whether my lawyer-trained cynicism is closer to the mark.
What about that Anti-Psychiatry guy? Anyone else think that was totally bizarre?
As usual, someone on Pharyngula will have posted a solution…:-)
“I think Hitchens has the best approach. Some jackass rambles for about five minutes, Hitch says “I’m content to treat that as a statement and move on,” then takes another drink.”
Concerning the DNA questioner people were not booing her question merely telling her to go look it up they may have been laughing when she made her I’m a proud christian claim and most of us were laughing because “one christian finally got through”. How ever Im kinda glad she asked the question despite knowing she was plainly using up valuable question time. Richards answer added a little more to my knowledge confirming at least the possibility that RNA can be the precurser to DNA. Just fantastic how the worm can turn!
Paul Palmer
I just saw your post about Sue-Ann reading your work in the Aust Skeptic; that is so, so cool.
I loved her routine on Friday night (I really enjoyed pretty much everyone’s presentations … ) Sue-Ann has so much compassion, she’s so bright.
I bought Sue-Ann’s book that night, and she kindly wrote a short personal message in it.
At one point, Sue-Ann spoke, in passing, of how she and her mother no longer speak. Sue-Ann continued on her merry way through her routine, while I was still grimacing. That must be such a tough burden.
:/ She’s so wonderful.
Must tell the Aust Skeptic that she should be asked to contribute! 
I have, on rare occasions, been known to loose my patience with questioners rambling on at the speaker, and said something rude. Rarely have I, however, done so in a disruptive way.
I did once, however, yell something at a member of a panel, having lost my patience at the person’s stupidity (nothing rude though). I also was once in an audience which shouted down Monckton when he didn’t want to respect the speaking order – Monckton of course later went on to claim that the audience wouldn’t let him have his say, even if he had had his opportunity to ask questions.
What I am trying to say is that there are cases where being rude is perfectly acceptable, though this is rarely the case while someone is asking a question at the speaker. But was that really the case here? Or was she trying to trap Dawkins somehow, without being interested in the answer?
I’m a long-time listener of the Skeptic Zone (and the Skeptic Tank), so it was extra pleasing to see you do so well as the MC on the weekend. You are a natural in front of such a big crowd!
Safari crashed every time I tried to post, hence my embarassingly triplicated postings. Sorry! Glad they got through in the end, though.
Hitchens’ method is a good one. Kylie was very specific about QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. Statements are neither. “I don’t believe in Psychiatry”?! What exactly was that meant to add to proceedings?
Hi. I’m Durro from RDnet and Ratskep. A big group of us were sitting together and the lady that asked the question about DNA was sitting 2 seats away from the last person in our group. When she came back to sit down after her question and RD’s patient and very good answer in layman’s terms, she smugly leaned over to her companion and said “Ha Ha Ha, Richard Dawkins doesn’t know what DNA is !”. I shit thee not. That’s word for word what was overheard by Starr, a fellow Moderator on the above two websites. When you hear that sort of response, you start to realise that there simply is no reasoning with some people.
Durro
Firstly I’d like to say what a terrific job you did all weekend, and that it was great to meet you. Yes you did plug your blog a bit, but then other speakers plugged their books. Considering most (all?) of you were doing this for free, I think you are entitled to.
Secondly, why do people keep subjecting overseas visitors to Vegemite? I feel sorry for them, surely there’s a human rights bill against that?
Lastly, the Christian woman who got up to ask a question of Dawkins. Whilst I didn’t boo or jeer her, I did comment to the people next to me “what, in 15 minutes?”. I thought it was a very open question that couldn’t really be answered in the few minutes available, thus was going to make Dawkins look like he didn’t know the answer. The crowd was wrong to be quite so vocal, but I suspect she had a fair idea what she was doing and the reaction she would get (we probably fell right into her trap).
I think you and Dawkins did a good job to admonish the crowd and let her speak. I thought Dawkins did well to refine the question to one smaller point, the RNA to DNA dilemma. Which I suspected she wouldn’t understand, heck I hardly do. Durro’s comment above confirms my suspicion.
I reckon the woman who asked the question about DNA was looking for a simplistic answer like DNA is the building blocks of life and I don’t know what came before it, or perhaps a put-down, so she could help convince herself of Dawkins’ ignorance. What she got was a wonderfully detailed answer, though she probably would have heard what she wanted to hear no matter his answer.
Hi Kylie
You should start a podblack fan club
I have to admit – I was one of those making noise at the Christian’s question. I’m actually with PZ Myers on this – both things were needed: the reaction from the crowd, and Dawkin’s considerate answer.
We discussed it at length afterwards in the pub.. and I think that any honest question from a Christian would have been okay – but what was asked was so obviously disingenious – that woman did not want to know what DNA was. She wanted to see Prof Dawkins squirm as she threw a rehearsed creationist line at him.
I see Durro’s post above which basically confirms that.
For what it’s worth? didn’t care. I loved the convention from start to finish (with the one exception of Pataki, who just irritated me)!
Hello!! How nice of you!
There is a Token Skeptic page on Facebook and a bigger one for the whole Skeptic Zone team. 
If a person wanted to apologise to the woman in person, I don’t see anything wrong with that. But I felt I had to say something to allow her to finish her qu and clearly Dawkins did too.
I should also point out – I’ve noticed that some media reports are blowing up the ‘Pope Nazi’ reference. As the person standing next to him at the time, I can say it was because Dawkins was stuck to remember the name and I muttered it to him and he nodded, but continued on.
Re: my being ‘very specific about QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.’
You may have noticed that the very first question of the convention was just a statement. Which I responded to with ‘Is that a question?’ and just got another statement. After that, I knew it was hopeless to try to make much more of a fuss about it. :/ As long as people were civil.
Congratulations Kylie… could you possibly be any more awesome?
Agreed!!
And hope to hear you at TAM Australia? Is that scheduled yet (I know everyone is banging on about tickets, but knowing who is set to talk would be a start!)?
Ian: I actually thought Pataki was great. He dealt with some complex issues that are often overlooked as they can be difficult to communicate. Perhaps not popular themes in some quarters, however relevant from a philosophical perspective. From a research perspective, some of his papers are quite worthwhile too.
Didn’t stop me needing a strong coffee afterwards though.
The woman asking the question was the IRL version of a troll. Perhaps a delete button on the dais would be a good solution or a lever ala Graeme Norton.
You must log in to post a comment.