The whole idea of saying that JC is a cunt is way past it’s prime anyhow, since Cradle Of Filth has been selling shirts (100% NSFW link) to that affect for more than a decade now already. To me, that particular word grouping has run it’s course of “shocking” quite some time ago. I’d be more attuned to someone saying that Jesus was a charlatain these days that something so banal as refering to him as a cunt.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I feel that the quote sums up badchad’s contribution to the board as far as fighting ignorance goes. You disagree. We’re going to have to agree to disagree here. Which, coincidentally, is what adults do on topics like this.
Additionally, I am not at all offended by his calling Christ a cunt. I very rarely allow willful ignorance to offend me. If I did, I’d spend a lot more time pissed off than is worth it.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
And the cunt chimes in as well..
[/QUOTE]
My life, I felt, was suddenly drifting aimlessly over the past few weeks. For shits and giggles I decided to read this thread. Reading your responses (possibly even dialed up on the douchebag level for the next 4 weeks (yay!)) makes me realize that God is in His Heaven, the sun will rise in the east, and all is right with the boards.
I feel very centered now. I am at peace. Thank you.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
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
[/QUOTE]
Jim, can you please explain to me how seeing the whole post changed the meaning or that badchads remark was taken out of context? I’ve read it about 5 times and I don’t see it.
yojimbo basically said some christans are good, some bad. Some atheists are good and some are bad. Some people are just cunts, but some aren’t.
Badchad then posted “Yeah, but Christ was a cunt too”
How does seeing the whole post change the meaning of what badchad posted? Am I missing something? Maybe it’s late and I’m tired. I’m not criticizing or defending anyone regarding this but I’m not getting where seeing yojimbo’s whole post made any difference.
[QUOTE=Tamerlane]
My point is that a bare modicum of civility counts for something on this board.
[/QUOTE]
Well said. I’m continually amazed how often this simple point seems to evade people. If you’re a jerk, if you’re warned for being a jerk, if you ignore the warnings and continue being a jerk, then shit will happen to you. No amount of hair-splitting, rules-lawyering, quote-mining, or “yes, but…” will change that. It is really not that complicated.
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
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.
[/QUOTE]
No, it doesn’t seem like a natural response to me. Since, to the best of my knowledge? Jesus never acted like a “cunt.” Christians, on the other hand? Have been known to act like all kinds of bad things. I agree with poster1. I don’t agree with poster2.
Still…cool with YOU, personally.
…Not that I expect you are concerned about THAT.
[sub]I LONG for an “edit” feature on this board[/sub]
[QUOTE=Caridwen]
How does seeing the whole post change the meaning of what badchad posted? Am I missing something?
[/QUOTE]
Yojimbo’s post, through the Gandhi quote, admonished Christians to act like Christ and this was clearly juxtaposed against Christians acting like cunts. badchad countered that Jesus was no better than many of the cunts yojimbo was admonishing. Over the top perhaps, but some people truly don’t like Jesus’ style. This is basically what I answered to Scotticher above, I guess. Oh, well.
Oh, I wouldn’t expect you to agree Scotticher and I don’t exactly either. But let’s face it, he was a faith-healing cult leader. Not everyone is going to love Jesus. 
[QUOTE=Caridwen]
Jim, can you please explain to me how seeing the whole post changed the meaning or that badchads remark was taken out of context? I’ve read it about 5 times and I don’t see it.
yojimbo basically said some christans are good, some bad. Some atheists are good and some are bad. Some people are just cunts, but some aren’t.
Badchad then posted “Yeah, but Christ was a cunt too”
How does seeing the whole post change the meaning of what badchad posted? Am I missing something? Maybe it’s late and I’m tired. I’m not criticizing or defending anyone regarding this but I’m not getting where seeing yojimbo’s whole post made any difference.
[/QUOTE]
I thought I explained how I saw a major difference in post 42. I cannot improve on my reasoning so here it is for you to agree or disagree with.
Jim
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
Oh, I wouldn’t expect you to agree Scotticher and I don’t exactly either. But let’s face it, he was a faith-healing cult leader. Not everyone is going to love Jesus. 
[/QUOTE]
I don’t expect that everyone is going to love Jesus. Not at all. Although I respectfully decline to agree that he was a cult leader.
[sub]Note to badchad..see how easy THAT was? IS?
And with that last comment? Here I sit, being a BAD Christian. A catty person. MY bad. But I’m human, and sometimes I just can’t help myself. Even though I SHOULD be able to help myself. At least HERE, where I have a preview function. I’m going to go back to blaming the lack of an edit function. [/sub]
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
I thought I explained how I saw a major difference in post 42. I cannot improve on my reasoning so here it is for you to agree or disagree with.
Jim
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I read your post and saw that your apparently saw some difference in context that I wasn’t getting, that’s why I asked.
CarnalK explained his take on what badchad posted, and I understand now what he thinks badchad meant.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Then it’s a damn good thing he wasn’t banned for that or any other reason, huh? He. Was. Suspended. For stalking. Not for his views. I still don’t see why that’s so hard to understand. He was being a prick. No matter how much you want to twist it around to “OMG he wuz banned 4 being atheist!!!1!” it still isn’t true. Next month he gets to come back and say whatever he wants. Which he will, no doubt.
[QUOTE=Caridwen]
Yes, I read your post and saw that your apparently saw some difference in context that I wasn’t getting, that’s why I asked.
CarnalK explained his take on what badchad posted, and I understand now what he thinks badchad meant.
[/QUOTE]
I honestly was not being snarky, I simply could not describe the difference I saw any better. I am glad **CarnalK ** was able to explain it better.
Jim
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
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.
[/quote]
I agree, and I am making that judgment from a limited exposure to badchad’s posts. It isn’t that I think a person should agree with me, and we most assuredly DON’T agree. It is that I think a person should disagree with at least a modicum of civility, as was said by…someone…in this thread. Tamerlane, I think? I searched, and…Yes.
[QUOTE=Tamerlane]
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
[/QUOTE]
badchad isn’t civil, at least not in my limited exposure to him. Not even remotely.
No, perhaps they didn’t. CarnalK’s post of the complete text did. But…it didn’t change my opinion. Sometimes context changes the intent, and sometimes it doesn’t. This time, for me? It didn’t.
I’d also like to say that I’ve been on this board for over six years, and it is seriously NOT pro-Christian. If anything, there is an ANTI-Christian bias here. This is a board that generally requires scientific proof for everthing. Faith is not something that is easily proved, and if you require physical proof, it can’t be “proved” at all. If badchad, or anyone else, wants to blame his supension on an anti-atheist bent? I think they are delusional.
[QUOTE=fluiddruid]
There is no formal policy. If there was not an appropriate thread to post the reason in, I would have posted in ATMB.
[/QUOTE]
Well, TD finally made the announcement. As if it wasn’t formal enough. She locked up that thread mighty fast too… can’t say I don’t blame her.
Indeed. I’d simply note, as others have done, that one who offers substance wrapped in aggressive assholery tends to repel folks who might otherwise pay attention to said substance. I find that if a poster here establishes an abrasive, nasty persona I tend to ignore what they say, no matter what value might be hidden in the slagheap.
On preview: What Tamerlane said.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
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.
[/QUOTE]
And for all your egomaniacal ranting… badchad was NOT banned! Just suspended for 30 days.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
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.
[/quote]
So you freely admit that a 30-day suspension is probably just right… Then why don’t you STFU?
As has been mentioned in other threads, by YOU and others… you have lost a lot of respect in this so-called “war” on ignorance. I never noticed you on these boards before, now I think you’re a dick extraordinaire. Just MHO.
What a maroon! Religion has been around since the days of the druids, probably WAY before that. Since the days Neanderthals were putting flowers on the graves of their dead. And NOW you are saying that ALL of recorded human history is wrong?
I’m not saying that disagreeing with religion… a higher power… is wrong. I am a Xtian myself, and still hold most of the faith in the highest disdain. But I don’t hold their opinions as worthless either, like you and badchad do. To me, your absolute ignore-ance of the whole of religion is pretty ridiculous. Bordering on egomanaical. Who are you (or BC) to say that YOU have the inside track on knowledge or ignorance?
If most of the SD population disagrees with you, hell, most of recorded history, maybe you should step back and re-think your position. :dubious:
[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
This hits the nail on the head. The Flying Dutchman, I’m interested in your reaction. If this intolerance exists, how do guys like this survive?
[/QUOTE]
I assume you are referring to the stalking. Look, when the going gets tough, the tough get going.
There was a time when there were some heavy sports/race debates in which I participated. I was incessantly attacked by a particular poster who lost no opportunity to insult me. Indeed I cringed in anticipation every time I posted. Unfortunately he was a popular poster and I wasn’t so nobody really cared about what I was going through. Eventually this poster found other fish to attack and insult in inappropriate fora and eventually lost enough popular support to sustain his privilege to post.
I don’t enjoy it when I perceive inconsistencies in mod decisions that are guided more by mob reaction than the rules. The suspension of Badchad appears to me to be triggered not by his actions although that is the convenient excuse, but by the hostile responses in Lib’s pit thread by dopers who feel empathy for a beloved fellow poster.