[QUOTE=Liberal]
(with his name in bold, no less)QUOTE]
Liberal, you have to know that’s standard for many posters. Bolding a username is not an attempt to draw extra attention to it. Sheesh.
It is exactly the same way.
Probably not. What I am asking is why the standard is inconsistently applied.
If starting a thread to bash a politician in an election year, and thereby increasing the level of vitriol is a warning offense, why is milroyj warned but all the Bush-bashers are not? If hijacking a thread to beat on one of your favorite political horses is a warning offense, why is milroyj warned but rjung is not?
What makes you think that only one was trolling?
Read the Teresa Heinz thread that I linked. The aforesaid pea-brain didn’t care for the direction the OP was going to go - i.e. bashing some politician who isn’t Bush or a Republican. So he hijacked it by taking a potshot at a politician he hated.
And this is different from milroyj’s offenses how, exactly?
Regards,
Shodan
He got five warnings. Whether the warnings were perfectly legit or not is ultimately up to the staff, but is really irrelevant. Once you’ve been warned, if you disagree with it, you should take that opportunity to figure out where the line is. At the absolute least, you should show some willingness to stop doing whatever it is you’re doing to piss people off.
Five warnings, even for minor infractions, is plenty of slack.
Do not fall into an affirmation of the consequent fallacy. I did not say that bashing Christians is mindless; I said that you used to bash them mindlessly.
Far more people have been murdered by atheists than by Christians, as you must know. Therefore, your attack against the allegedly flawed structure is itself flawed. But even that is not the sort of bashing that I’m talking about. In the early days, you believed (or seemed to believe) that people of faith (myself included) were beneath you intellectually. You were rather a blind bigot with a foolish disregard for logic. It seems that now, if nothing else, you have at least toned down the more flippant and pointless attacks.
Yes, I realize that you are an equal opportunity basher of faith, with the exception of your own. But I do think you’ve made progress. I think you’re a lot like me — capable of taking criticism in the manner in which it is intended, and improving yourself as a result. That alone gives you a huge potential for growth.
[QUOTE=This Year’s Model]
You’re quite right. In retrospect, that observation seems opportunistic. I apologize for making it.
Maybe because the #1 Bush-basher had been suspended for the duration.
It wasn’t “Christian bashing.” It was, specifically, Catholic bashing and everybody knows that Catholics aren’t Christians. 
In the interest of fairness and recognition that I seem to have read Milroy’s post differently than some others did, I’m going to retract my assertion that he accused Hentor of “molestation” and just go with “grossly insensitive.” Apologies to Milroy if he can read this. There isn’t any need to exaggerate his posts beyond what he intended.
Shodan, if you rever think any of my posts are breaking any rules, click the little little red triangle. Otherwise, fuck off already. I’m starting to feel like I’m your pet bugbear around here.
Not that I meant to imply Reeder had been suspended for 11 months. He had been warned not to make non-political posts like milroyj’s and would likely have been summarily banned had he done so.
I am fascinated by this claim. Please tell us more.
yeah well I raise you some seriously stretching it. Although I think your point here is better. I agree it was grossly insensitive and I read it as sarcasm to the “pleasure” point. It is the Pit so insensitivity and sarcasm to me are appropiate, regardless of MY personal opinion of the poster.
Well, you give yourself too little credit, and me too much. I make no claim to any extraordinary level of evenhandedness, and in the case of the banned poster, i fully admit to having developed a rather heavy tilt against him. I don’t think my prejudice (or would “post-judice” be more appropriate) is without a solid basis, but i do concede it may be stronger than it needs to be.
Well, here’s where my lack of evenhandedness might show itself, because, whether or not he’s here to defend himself, in my opinion milroyj showed enough breaches of common decency that i can’t get too agitated when he’s the recipient fo same. I know, i know, two wrongs don’t make a right and all that. It’s just not something that i’ll get too steamed up about.
As for the issue for rule-breaking, i agree with your earlier observation that there’s a certain irony in “breaking the rules to bash a rules-breaker.”
Sorry I did not see this until after I posted my reponse - Please disregard!
::Cough:: Ahem!
P.S. Liberal, if my points are valid, and I am expressing them for a valid reason, how is that mindless. I contain, as I did a bit ago, the claim of mindless bashing of a topic is without worth. I am aware that communists have killed people. However, I can not believe you would actually claim the whole of history contains more people killed by atheists then by religious folk. Furthermore, while communism and religion are both ideologies, atheism is not, and thus can not be blamed on a person’s cradle to grave beliefs. Oh, and I insulted certain religious people, and I believe people were idiots for believing certain things, but that is not the same thing as believing people are below me. That was you reading what you wanted to see into my posts.
Oh, and thank you for saying so. 
Stalin was an atheist. He murdered millions of people. Therefore, atheists are murderes.
John Doe is a vegetarian. He is also a serial killer. Therefore, vegetarians are serial killers.
Does not follow. Third grade stuff. Neither atheists not vegetarians kill because they are either or the two. OTOH, how many are butchered in the Bible and/or the Koran alone, directly due to their theistic beliefs?
Cheers, fuckwit.
</End hijack. Will not respond to ansuing pointy-headed gibberish from Lib, thus turning yet another thread into “Everything’s About Liberal”>
The fact that you don’t know him is the problem here. milroyj never once posted anything of value or insight. He was the epitome of nasty, small-minded political obsessives. He did nothing but post snarky one-liners at folks who disagree with his politics. And bannings are rarely done because of one offense: it’s a pattern of behavior, over time, that indicates that someone doesn’t belong here. milroyj demonstrated this consistently. If you don’t know him, you can’t see that, but the mods are right to ban folks for their behavior over time rather than waiting for one specific circumstance.
Don’t call it bullshit if you don’t know the situation.
So?
But the problem for me is that, in at least one case, it wasn’t even clear to me that he received a warning. In my earlier post (#70, above) i pointed out that when milroyj and i exchanged insults in an IMHO thread, the only intervention by the Board admin was when Czarcasm said: “If you two want to exchange apologies, you may do so, but this will be dropped now.”
I see this sort of “Cool it” admonitions quite frequently on these Boards, and it never once occurred to me that they constituted the sort of formal warning upon which a banning might be based. As i said above, i was always under the impression that actual warnings were made in a much more formal manner. I’m now curious as to how many strikes i have against my name.
I mean, if the purpose of warnings before bannings is to get posters to change their behavior, then surely it’s a good idea to let people know if a warning they receive is just a casual admonition, or if it’s serious enough to actually be recorded and used against them in the future.
He’s going to talk about Communism. Lib considers that to have been an atheist movement.
Personally, I think Communism was a religion in itself, the same way that Nazism was. The social dynamic and mythilogical thinking was the same. It was a non-theistic movement which repressed other religions but it did so in order to crush dissent and competing ideology more than to serve the cause of atheism.
Still, he has an arguable point on the face of it. I would just dispute that atheism, in itself, was the driving force behind Communism.
You didn’t link to a THK thread, you linked to a Laura Bush thread in which I made a snarky comment about Laura Bush.
Maybe you accidentally posted the wrong link?
It’s not really an accusation without naming any names, now is it, Lib? And what makes you think I’m bashing a rule-breaker? I’m bashing an asshole. I couldn’t care less whether he broke the rules, except in that I’m glad he’s gone. Being an asshole is plenty of reason for me to bash someone. Can’t say I’m surprised to see you sticking up for him, though.