Ah, milroyj, we barely knew ye.

[Liberal]

@Diogenes the Cynic

He’s going to talk about Communism. Lib considers that to have been an atheist movement.

Well, it was, but only coincidentally — much in the same way that the Crusades were a Christian movement. And that’s really the point that I was making. Just because a group of Christians murders people, that does not making Christians murderers anymore than atheists are murderers just because groups of atheists have committed murder. Note the context: Scott had said that Christian faith structure was flawed because Christians had murdered people. Hence, my reply to him.

[Frank]

@Excalibre

Can’t say I’m surprised to see you sticking up for him, though.

Liberal is not sticking up for milroyj. He is, as he has consistently and almost without fail always done in this type of thread, admonishing us that he believes it is wrong to bash milroyj, or anybody, when that person is incapable of responding.

[Scott_Plaid]

@Liberal

Note the context: Scott had said that Christian faith structure was flawed because Christians had murdered people. Hence, my reply to him.

No, no, no. In the past, I said christianity was flawed due to the sheer bloody mindedness displayed in the bible, and the lesson children learn from being raised on this stuff. I also implied that being raised on this stuff caused them to think killing other groups is a-ok. Now, there is a huge number of people who have killed for non-religious reasons, but that more have been killed for religious reasons is just a kind of cherry on the top of my argument, as well as a kind of flawed argument from persuasion.

[groupwbench]

@Cagey Drifter

You can still flame another poster without being mean-spirited. Why can’t we have good discussion and still go home as friends at the end of the day?

Ummm WTF? What exactly is a flame to you? Besides we have forums for exactly the kind thing your talking about. MPSIMS is where you can share your thoughts on lint removal or tell us all about your ephinany while on the toilet, ya know the things we all are dying to know about you. Also you can have those fluffy, pat eachother on the ass banter.

[Larry_Mudd]

@alice_in_wonderland

Is milroyj the guy who hates Canada?

I wouldn’t say that he hates Canada. His attitude of “Why the hell should we consider them?” was much, much more broadly applied than simply northward. It seemed to me to be pretty much extended to anyone who wasn’t in complete accord with him, so it was hard to take it personally.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Liberal

Well, it was, but only coincidentally — much in the same way that the Crusades were a Christian movement.

I think, though, that the Crusades were a Christian movement much moreso than Communism was an atheist movement. It’s true that Marxism/Marxist-Leninism/Stalinism is atheistic, but atheism isn’t fundamental to Communism, and in fact, you see Christian marxists (like Liberation Theology, for example). However, Christianity was a fundamental part of the Crusades. The goal of the Crusades was to place “the Holy Land” under Christian leadership…to “save” it from the Muslims. This, in itself (plus the fact that the area is holy to Christians due to Christian beliefs), ties Christianity to the Crusades. Undoubtedly there would have been other horrible wars happening, but without Christianity, the Crusades wouldn’t have happened.

[Liberal]

@Scott_plaid

No, no, no. In the past, I said christianity was flawed due to the sheer bloody mindedness displayed in the bible, and the lesson children learn from being raised on this stuff. I also implied that being raised on this stuff caused them to think killing other groups is a-ok. Now, there is a huge number of people who have killed for non-religious reasons, but that more have been killed for religious reasons is just a kind of cherry on the top of my argument, as well as a kind of flawed argument from persuasion.

I don’t accept your premise that more people have been killed for religious reasons than non. In fact, I don’t accept any of the premises you’ve just stated. But the progress that you’ve made is similar to the progress that I myself made upon arriving here many years ago — that is to say, we both understand that we may disagree and still both be intelligent and respectable. At least, I no longer get the impression that you think I’m stupid.

[Liberal]

@Captain Amazing

I think, though, that the Crusades were a Christian movement much moreso than Communism was an atheist movement. It’s true that Marxism/Marxist-Leninism/Stalinism is atheistic, but atheism isn’t fundamental to Communism, and in fact, you see Christian marxists (like Liberation Theology, for example). However, Christianity was a fundamental part of the Crusades. The goal of the Crusades was to place “the Holy Land” under Christian leadership…to “save” it from the Muslims. This, in itself (plus the fact that the area is holy to Christians due to Christian beliefs), ties Christianity to the Crusades. Undoubtedly there would have been other horrible wars happening, but without Christianity, the Crusades wouldn’t have happened.

Well, true, but there’s also Atheists for Jesus.

[Liberal]

@This Year's Model

Liberal is not sticking up for milroyj. He is, as he has consistently and almost without fail always done in this type of thread, admonishing us that he believes it is wrong to bash milroyj, or anybody, when that person is incapable of responding.

I wish I had half your class. Thanks for explaining that. I had promised Wring that I would never again respond to Excalibre. I did so because Wring had made having his respect contingent upon it.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

I think there are many times where it’s okay to bash someone who can’t respond. It’s only cowardly to do if you’re bashing them because they can’t respond.

However, I’d say shit about Stalin if he were still alive; I’d talk shit about Andrew Jackson were he a member of the messageboard. And when milroy was around, I mentioned what a tool he was on more than one occasion.

@shodan

It is exactly the same way.

Is not!

(C’mon. A simple negation of what I say isn’t an argument.)

Daniel

[Skywatcher]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

(C’mon. A simple negation of what I say isn’t an argument.)

Sure it is, as long as one of you is John Cleese.

[vibrotronica]

@Liberal

I don’t think the behavior is limited to any one particular poster. But one name is in the title, and one particular person — a person who cannot respond — is being called a " creepy piece of shit jerk" by Vibrotronica (with his name in bold, no less).

I didn’t say anything about him in this thread that I didn’t say to his face.

[Cagey_Drifter]

@groupwbench

Ummm WTF? What exactly is a flame to you?

My point is that you don’t have to be a total dick to air your frustrations and anger.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Lute Skywatcher

Sure it is, as long as one of you is John Cleese.

All I know is that I’m not John Cleese. Shodan?

Daniel

[Kythereia]

I’m relatively sure I’m not Eric Idle. Or Terry Gilliam.

Yeah, I got nothing else…

[GIGObuster]

@mhendo

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.

Personally, I found him to be a prick with the mind of a brick. But, as much as I dislike **milroyj ** I have to agree a little with **mhendo ** here. IMHO the confusing warnings are one reason why he should be given a chance to come back if he requests humbly and with a promise to behave.

[sub]Fat chance! This is **milroyj ** after all, but just to show my liberal bias he should be given the chance to return if he can demonstrate he is better than what he just showed us so far.[/sub]

[vibrotronica]

And by the way, there aren’t many people on this board who I would even bother to bash in their wake thread. That guy just rubbed me the wrong way. It seemed to be his purpose in life.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Kythereia

I’m relatively sure I’m not Eric Idle. Or Terry Gilliam.

Yeah, I got nothing else…

I appreciate the answer–I was starting to wonder. Idle curiosity.

Daniel

[Scott_Plaid]

No, Shodan is John Cleese, from the Self-defense Against Fresh Fruit skit. (The peach assailant should be attacked with a crocodile.) He will spend forever arguing that something is one way, when it isn’t, then, when you have argued his point about a what he is saying, he will claim it is off topic, and start using a different point. When you get fed up with him, he blows up.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Another advantage of milroy’s absence: nobody will ever again mistake mhendo for him.

Daniel