Not a justified banning, IMO, based on the evidence presented. And I say that as someone who thinks milly is a pea-brained asshole.
Thanks, Wring. I believe I get your meaning now…
…
Regarding atheist murderers versus Christian murderers, I believe it is proper to apply consistent standards. If leaders who are Christian speak for and act on behalf of Christians, then leaders who are atheist speak for and act on behalf of atheists particularly when the atheism is institutionalized as it is in communism. I declare that no pontif or preacher or leader who says he is Christian acts on my behalf, just as I’m sure you say of atheists. If you don’t want to claim Lenin, then don’t expect me to claim Pope Urban II.
This column from Cecil is relevant to the hijack regarding murders, although I doubt that it will actually resolve the question.
I’m still stuck on the people who ate atheists - that was a great typo. I guess that’s why church people burned them - they didn’t like raw food. 
Anyway, let’s talk about who speaks for who (whom?). No matter who they are, unless I’ve given them my express permission, I don’t consider anyone to be speaking for me. Take any leader, or wannabe leader. If they say what I want to hear, and if there are any past histories that bear it out as fact, I will go along with it and support them. But, they don’t speak FOR me. It’s partly out of my own personal arrrogance, and partly because at any given time, any one of them may say something that gets a big WTF? STFU! from me. If only I speak for me, at least I can have some control.
I’m so glad to see that I’m not the only one that had that problem.
~sighs dreamily~
I’d like to eat an atheist…
but she’s half way across the country now.
Heathen breast is most tender. Try a thigh while you’re at it.
Yes-you get a gold star.
Someone care to explain what god atheists would kill for? Being one myself, this is something of a quandary, for I can’t think of any.
What – an atheist, or a god?
HEY! I’d earned a gold star way back when you were calling me a dumbass. I didn’t say anything because, umm, you were calling me a dumbass.
Presumably not for a god. They would kill for the same reasons as anyone else. It’s correct to point out that many of the most murderous dictatorships in the world were officially atheist (though whether the population was predominantly atheist is less certain.)
Of course, official atheism has obviously not often been used to justify murder - no one has ever invaded a country to install atheism, or committed mass murder to instill fear in the populace and frighten them out of their religious ways. That said, most religious conflicts are probably political in nature to a very great extent, even when adherents claim to be working only for God. I think that, at a certain point, it’s difficult to resolve the difference between politics and religion when these conflicts take place. Religion may work to stir up the passions of the masses, but when the goal is to win power and wealth for a religious group, that’s arguably really a political action.
Oh, I wish I were an atheistic weiner,
That is what I’d truely like to be,
For if I were an atheistic weiner…
One more vote:
**milroyj ** was a buffoon; but there are other buffoons who get nary a hard look.
No complaints from where I’m standing. I never saw anything from him that wasn’t intentionally infammatory, rude, abrasive, and just reductionistic to the point of absurdity.
Asshat would be a compliment for this shmuck.
Good riddence.
Pathetic.
Stpauler nailed it back on the first page. I wasn’t a fan of milroyj, and I think it’s ridiculous.
It’s funny, y’know? Wherever dopers gather, weather it be at formal dopefests, in doper related communities online or even just a simple lunch with one or two people (to say nothing of the anon communities which are designed for snark, so they can be discounted to some degree), when the discussion inevitably gets around to how bannings are handled lately, the general consensus is that a monkey with diarrhea could fling his shit at a list of board members and do a fairer job.
And when the time for renewals rolls around, some people shake their head and just can’t understand why 60% of the membership base elects not to renew.
Coincidence?
If by “coincidence” you mean “wholly unrelated”, then yes.
milroyj may or may not have deserved to be banned for the above mentioned transgressions, but he wasn’t some random target of banning either, so the poo-flinging comparison is quite absurd. If one had to compile a short list of folks they thought were “most likely to be banned for being a jerk”, he’d have been at or near the top on most lists.
people seem to be expecting the banning process to somehow match up to the way a criminal trial functions. You know, that the mods have to provide evidence to make a case, that it has to be adequately proven - I think exposure to cop shows has made people expect to see something more akin to a trial when folks are banned.
I don’t get why at all. If milroyj’s behavior over his time here merits banning - and it does - then why do the mods need to cite specific examples to prove it? The point of the “don’t be a jerk” rule is that it allows the mods - who don’t have unlimited time and resources at their disposal - to examine patterns of behavior and come to decisions about them. This is a good thing. Rather than an adversarial process like a court room, decisions are based upon a consensus among those in charge here. That applies to bannings as well as everything else.
milroyj most assuredly did not contribute anything to the boards. He was a jerk - constantly. Whether “being mean in the pit” is a bannable offense or not is irrelevant, because it’s not a standard that’s going to be applied to other users. I don’t think there’s any serious danger of a precedent being set of nice, ordinary dopers getting kicked out for being mean in the forum designed for it. Rather, milroyj demonstrated a continuous pattern of general worthlessness. And he got kicked out for it. If the mods don’t engage in some facsimile of the legal process in doing so, I don’t see why it’s a problem, nor why anyone expects it. Clearly the process worked right here, and it’s worked right in most cases. There are some borderline events in which people have disagreements. And there always will be. But there is just nothing to suggest that the mods are acting capriciously here, and why should they have to dig up specific incidents of him breaking rule X, Y, or Z when his behavior is clear to everyone here?
Don’t you think it’s jerkish to accuse people of trolling?
Yep. That’s why the mods have started people about even vaguely insinuating that a person is a troll.
If you are referring to the references in this thread about milroyj being a troll, then no simply because he was banned for trolling amongst other things. Calling him a troll is a statement of fact.