Did you miss the threads where Doper after Doper posted about being taught science in Catholic schools? Including evolution?
Yes, fortunately.
Ironically - or not - this comes much closer to hate speech than the comments about woo. 
You would not be allowed to refer to other posters as morons even if you did not name names. But morons and comparisons to Klansmen and Nazis are a lot more insulting than “woo-woos.” I wouldn’t warn you for calling another poster in the same thread “woo-woo,” much less a different thread.
Why fortunately? You prefer to remain ignorant on the subject of Catholics and science?
Let’s not go there.
Good idea. Let’s refrain from more comments of this kind in ATMB.
Okay, then. What about Skep-dicks?
There’s a bit of a contradiction between those two statements, isn’t there.
How about you make a poll in IMHO and see if the majority agrees with you on that.
Diogenes the Cynic was indeed making a comment about a group of posters. I meant to acknowledge that explicitly in post #23 but I deleted that line for some reason. The word he used isn’t nice but it doesn’t rise to the level of being a personal insult. It does not compare in terms of nastiness to sKKKeptic, faggot*, Republicanazi, or skep-dick. Any of those words would merit a warning. “Woo-woos” doesn’t. “Woo-woos” means “posters who believe in things I am characterizing as woo.” Not polite, but again, not a personal insult and not even within light years of being called hate speech.
*So faggot and kike are the only word used in this thread that would probably qualify as hate speech.
This isn’t correct, by the way. As a counter cite, just see any page from Randi’s website. Approximately every 100th word is “woowoo” or some variant. It is not just New Age stuff, it’s anything from a scientist expressing an opinion that ESP might possibly be real, to a musician expressing the opinion that Stradivarius violins sound better than other types. Both the people and the ideas get called “woowoo”, but 9 times out of 10, it is the people. Dio’s usage is the usual.
In the first place, you’ve contradicted yourself again. You said in post #12 that Republicanazi is “allowed in general” but now would “merit a warning”
In the second place, you objected to references to nazis, or the KKK. Point taken, but “skep-dick” has neither of those. I think it’s exactly equal in nastiness to “woowoo.” Allowing one, but banning the other is a double standard.
“skep-dick” contains a vulgarity. You’re calling the target a dick.
“woowoo” does not contain a vulgarity. The target is being called silly.
The word “woo” is synonymous with “magic”.
Skep-dick is only insulting because of the -dick part, because it is a vulgar allusion to a penis. If I called you a woo-dick, that would be equivalent to skep-dick. Woo-woo characterizes your views as not worthy of consideration, but it contains no intrinisic vulgarity.
You’re right, I’m sorry. It’s been a long week and I obviously need to take a break and resume this later. I was vague about this: I would give a warning if you called another poster a SKKKepdic, skep-dick, faggot, or Republicanazi. If you were making a comment about (say) the Republican party in general, Republicanazi would not merit a warning.
The double standard exists only in your head. If you call another poster a skep-dick, you are clearly calling him a dick. It’s the second half of the word. It’s still a much nastier insult that “woo-woo.” I am happy to continue on this vein later if you like, but I don’t think your argument holds any water.
woowoo means vagina. See earlier posts in this thread.
woowoo means vagina. If you call someone a woowoo you are clearly calling him a cunt.
A) Your personal definition of the word is irrelevant. Society defines the meaning of a word, not you.
B) Even if it did mean “pussy”, society defines the relative nastiness of a word not logic. Calling a woman a cunt is not equivalent to calling a man a dick. The former is generally seen in the US as being far more insulting.
Woowoo does not mean vagina. Gimpy was making a joke.