Not really, no. Yojimbo wasn’t calling anyone in particular a cunt. *Badchad did.
Thanks for that, based on Lord Ashtar’s post I would assume BC was being a overly insulting ass. Based on Q.E.D.'s post, I see he was only being obnoxiously confrontational. Now seeing the entire post in context, what do you know he was being somewhat rude, but responding to a quote he did not think was worth anything in the same language as the poster of the quote. No Foul at all except to the thin skinned Christians willing to read it out of context.
**Q.E.D., ** Jesus Christ is a legendary figure. Calling him a a bad name might be in bad taste, but not really worse than the infinite tirades against Bush and Clinton I have seen on this board. **BC ** did not call a poster the C word.
Jim
My feeling is that baning people for being “jerks” may be a necessity, but it should be a push-comes-to-shove, we’ve-tried-everything-else kind of necessity, and shouldn’t be used lightly, because easy recourse to this basis for a banning makes it seem more personal than I’m comfortable with.
“Trolling” again should have some kind of hard and fast definition, instead of being used as casually as many posters use it. When it has clearly occurred, go ahead and ban the fucker, but be very sure a clear standard has been violated.
Sock puppets are a pretty easy call. Ban 'em. A species of sock puppet, the fake or wildly inconsistent narrative of someone’s life, is less clear than a IP address of known bannee, but if you can make it stick, go ahead, ban him too.
What I’m saying is we have plenty of grounds to ban posters who violate rules, but the “jerk” rule seems easiest to ban someone for simply voicing unpopluar views.
There, there. Dry your tears. Just 29 more days and you can give him a nice long tongue bath when he comes back.
Whoosh much? I mean, badchad and spirit?
ETF, I like you as well and very often/almost always agree with your views. OTOH, nothing wrong with not being in accord w/everything.
Point being, again, that if you prefer substance over style, badchad might be an asshole – but a substantive one. Kind of reminds me of Collonsboury; lord knows I have no love lost for the guy. But no doubt he knew his stuff.
For example, I think **Lord Ashtar ** is being deliberately disingenuous above. I think he understood what “context” meant, while claiming to be merely quoting badchad. Pretty jerky behavior, IMO.
But I don’t think that’s cause for banning him. It’s cause for me to roll my eyes at what a jerk he’s being, it’s cause for other posters to roll their eyes preemptively, perhaps, on seeing that he’s posted again, but we really aren’t served by a very liberal definition of what constitutes bannably jerky offenses.
Hmm…and here I though you were the pussy.
Thank you, What Exit?, for succinctly explaining.
Irrelevant. I brought it up as a shining example of badchad’s particular brand of ignorance fighting.
Good job. I don’t have an opinion about the actual suspension one way or the other but CarnalK’s full cite makes a huge difference in that particular quote.
Oh, SNAP! Boy, you sure showed her, didn’t you?
Dumbass.
Consider your ignorance “fough”.
A suspension around here these days is a mark of honor. If **Badchad ** was really out of line he would have been shitcanned in a heartbeat like others have been, but the suspension is really more of a super stringent warning than anything else. It’s not that he’s so horrible, it’s just the way he chooses to go about it. I don’t think that he was singled out for his beliefs, such as Der Tirhs or **PRR ** find ways to work within our system to flog their own dead horses. Badchad has somewhat of a vaild point, it’s just that he needs to work on his delivery a bit more and learn not to fuck with people like **Poly ** as a matter of course and choice.
What’s relevant Lord Ashtar, is how full of shit you’re willing to be.
And the cunt chimes in as well…
It’s no secret that I was a big fan of Collounsbury when he was here. I still am, where he hangs out now. But he fully deserved his banning IMHO. He just couldn’t control his temper with those he considered fools or annoying. No big deal - he can rant and snarl ( often entertaingly ) to his hearts content at his current abode.
Meanwhile december, who I loathed, didn’t deserve his banning as far as I’m concerned. I’d say he was a disingenuous, ignorance-promoting little weasel, but he stayed within the lines.
My point is that a bare modicum of civility counts for something on this board. Always has - them’s the rules and I support that. Badchad openly admitted to taking a certain amount of glee in stalking and discomfitting a poster. That’s being a jerk, I don’t care who the poster is. Does he deserve banning for solely that offence? I probably wouldn’t say so. But suspension after multiple warnings? Sure.
- Tamerlane
Not irrelevant, lazy and dishonest on your part.
With a minimum of searching you could probably find a dozen posts where **BC ** was being rude out of proportion to the thread and the poster in question.
In full context, your example only shows you chose not to use your brain and went for an easy and deceptive quote. Either that or you are one of the Thin Skinned Christians I referred to you and you were so upset over a post by an ill-mannered poster on a message board that you forgot the context and only remembered the insult to your savior.
Please note that while I believe BC deserved his suspension and that he was rude to the degree that he could not make his point with anyone that did not agree with him. What you did was ignorant and spiteful, especially while the poster cannot defend himself. You should be ashamed of yourself. Do you always act this way?
Jim
yojimbo introduced the word there, sure. But I fail to see why calling Christ a “cunt” was necessary. I mean, badchad has always made his position clear. I obviously don’t agree with him, but I do feel that he has a right to his opinion. I don’t think that even if you don’t believe in the divinity of Christ, you could ever think that He was a “cunt.” But…if badchad thinks so? “shrugs” He has the right TO think so.
What I do NOT think is that he has ever shown any respect for posters who don’t agree with him. Nor do I think he has shown any respect for beliefs other than his own. Which is fine, of course…so long as a poster refrains from being nasty to other posters about it. I don’t see that badchad has ever refrained from being nasty about much of ANYTHING. In fact, the only time I have seen him posting at all is when he was being combative, and rude, about other poster’s Christian beliefs. And being nasty toward them about it. How is that not being a jerk?
I might have missed something, of course. I was only here occasionally for a very long time and haven’t been here all that much until recently. But I just searched on badchad’s posts, and I only found a handful that weren’t to do with his quest to bash Christians. And of that handful, some were probably to do with it as well. I don’t have the time to read them all, but some of them appeared to be diatribes against tomndebb. I assume those were the ones alluded to before, which accused him of a Christian bias. Heh…as if there is a Christian bias on this board? I don’t think so. And some of the rest of that handful I think I read in the past…and it was more of the same.
I’ve always liked you, CarnalK, and I see no reason to change my mind. I just think you are wrong in this particular instance.
Scotticher: BC really only participated in anti-religion threads on the board. He was rude and obnoxious very often. He admitted to stalking another poster. He is lucky he was only suspended.
**CarnalK ** did not defend these things. He only fought ignorance at showing how different and extremely rude post looks in full context. If CarnalK objects to the suspension, I think you have a right to question it, but do you actually think Lord Ashtar’s or even Q.E.D.'s post provided proper context for **BC ** post?
Jim
But don’t you see? It was a quite natural response. See what you think of this paraphrase:
<i>
poster1: Lots of people act like cunts, atheists and Christians. Christians, at least, should act more like Jesus.
poster2: But Jesus acted like a cunt, so that wouldn’t solve the problem.</i>
That’s my perception of it. “Cunt” was almost the obvious word though maybe that’s just the bent of my humour.