[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Evil Captor got an ATMB thread (well, announcement) when he was suspended, too, seven months earlier. As far as I know, he and Excalibre are the only people to come back from suspension and not (almost) immediately melt down again, earning a permanent ban.
[/QUOTE]
hello? is this thing on?
[QUOTE=if6was9]
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]
No, I’m saying that Xianity is an elaborate tricked-out version of Neanderthal-style superstition. You’re right, unevolved humans had their superstitious
systems of belief. I think we’ve evolved beyond that.
I think everyone has the inside track on what HE or SHE thinks of religion. If you make up your own mind, that’s good enough for me, though I reserve the right to disagree or even challenge you on those beliefs you volunteer to voice on a public messageboard. Sorry if this is out of keeping with your vision of my rights.
The argument that I’m outvoted, so I should bow to the will of the majority, even the vast majority, is one I find particularly unsustainable. Most people are sheep, more so the further back you go in recorded history.
[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]
If I had offered anything quite so strained as my interpretation of any given Biblical passage, the dear departed would have been all over my ass for “making thing up out of whole cloth.” That’s not to say you may not be right about what was going on in Badchad’s mind – but it’s far from the construction much of anyone else around here would place on it, IMO at least.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I’d like to believe that the mods. are guided by principles of fairness and equitability on these issues. Unfortunately, they are human, and subject to emotional reactions. Tom has been extraordinarily candid about how he goes to great lengths not to allow his personal reaction to guide his moderating judgment – in fact, in the opinion of many leaning too far the other way in an effort to correct for his own bias. It’s been my experience that the staff here are very lenient towards offenses, especially those clearly due to responding in anger.
My approach, after I discovered he was not “just another sophomore-atheist dipwad,” was simply not to respond to BC’s nasty zingers and misrepresentations of my position – until it came to the point where I seemingly could not post in GD or the Pit without his showing up to indulge in a bit of character assassination. I don’t think it’s right in either your or my case, and I’m glad you found the fortitude and patience to endure.
Firstly, I think the suspension was well-merited. Neither Polycarp nor any other Doper should have to put up with that kind of crap, which does indeed amount to cyber-stalking. It would have been disgraceful had Polycarp been forced out of the forums by such unchecked behaviour.
Secondly, my thanks to CarnalK for putting in context the cunt reply. The context did make all the difference in this instance, and although, given Badchad’s general boorishness, it made no odds to the outcome, it would have been unjust to let the out-of-context implication stand.
Why should any poster be allowed to follow another around just to screw with him?
B.S.
If Ghandi admitted doing that to Churchill, Richard Dawkins admitted doing that to Benedict, Wellington admitted doing that to Napoleon or Justin admitted doing it to Britney, they should be suspended – and if they keep it up banned - it simply doesn’t matter, at all, what thier relative positions are.
[QUOTE=jimmmy]
Why should any poster be allowed to follow another around just to screw with him?
B.S.
If Ghandi admitted doing that to Churchill, Richard Dawkins admitted doing that to Benedict, Wellington admitted doing that to Napoleon or Justin admitted doing it to Britney, they should be suspended – and if they keep it up banned - it simply doesn’t matter, at all, what thier relative positions are.
[/QUOTE]
You are aware, I hope, that if Ghandi had actually stalked Churchill, he would, indeed, have been jailed (although he might have considered it an acceptable risk as part of his civil disobedience). Similarly in the situation of Justin and Britney, actual stalking is against the law. Welly, represented a nation at war against Napoleon–stalking was his job.
I’m sure I’ve been whoooshed, but I found your post just a bit odd.
[QUOTE=lissener]
hello? is this thing on?
[/QUOTE]
Wow, that’s
[QUOTE=lissener]
hello? is this thing on?
[/QUOTE]
Wow, that’s quite a lapse on my part, especially since I’ve enjoyed needling you about that on occasion.
I think too much holiday pie has affected my memory.
Am I the only one who saw the “Christ is a cunt” statement as an extremely obvious attempt to get a rise out of people?
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
If I had offered anything quite so strained as my interpretation of any given Biblical passage, the dear departed would have been all over my ass for “making thing up out of whole cloth.” That’s not to say you may not be right about what was going on in Badchad’s mind – but it’s far from the construction much of anyone else around here would place on it, IMO at least.
[/QUOTE]
Give me a break. While badchad may have decided to call that interpretation “strained” that’s because he likes to be jerky, what’s your fucking excuse?
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Am I the only one who saw the “Christ is a cunt” statement as an extremely obvious attempt to get a rise out of people?
[/QUOTE]
Well, I used to think the gratuitous expletive “Jesus H. Christ on a Stick” extremely offensive to many Christians, but then you yourself disagreed with that view.
Actually I get a rise every time cunt is expressed.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Am I the only one who saw the “Christ is a cunt” statement as an extremely obvious attempt to get a rise out of people?
[/QUOTE]
No. It got a lot of attention. For the record, however, when it was brought up among the staff, we tended to regard it as a (typically for its author) crude continuation of the yojimbo conversation that, while certainly looking to make a loud point, was not merely a gratuitous ploy for attention.
Had that been the title of a thread in MPSIMS, it would have looked much like trolling, but as a throw away line in the context is was posted, it was simply an emphatic display of his lack of respect for certain opinions.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
I noticed he lost the Charter Member status.
[/QUOTE]
Not so much.
[QUOTE=duffer]
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]
Anytime, douchebag. And it didn’t cost you a penny 
[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
Yeah, for Pete’s sake. How did this POS manage to attract so many apologists? I am fascinated by how much attention this adolescent, pseudo-expert has created (from myself included), and by all the outrage over his “mistreatment.” God almighty, he is an unmitigated shit, who spouts insulting non sequiturs. I am not only glad he has a suspension, I hope he gets deported, excommunicated, and impeached. Wait! I’m guilty of what I am expressing bemusement over. Okay, let me try again–I hope he gets Saturday detention.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I’ve been wondering that myself. Trolls and jerks are a dime a dozen and Chad’s behavior isn’t that unusual, but how he got his little fan club is beyond me. I keep hearing from prr and Red Fury about his “logic” but I’ve never seen BC actually formulate an original logical argument. His points seem to be:
The Bible contains weird and disturbing things.
“Liberal” (i.e. non-fundamentalist) Christians cherry pick the Bible for the good things.
Belief in God is unscientific.
That’s it. All of these points are things cheerfully admitted to by most of the board’s Christians. How they give BadChad any sort of victory has yet to be explained. The arguments go something like this:
BadChad: two and two make four!
Board Christian (Jew, theist, sympathetic atheist): Well, yes, most of us realize that…
BadChad: Ha! I win the internet, you cunt!
Compare him to Diogenes the Cynic, who can formulate a truly devastating logical argument, as he is doing in the 'free will" thread in GD. You may not agree with DtC, but there’s some meat there.
Trolls don’t have to be insincere. You can be a troll and believe in your message. What makes you a troll is that you frame your argument in a way that the discussion is about you, rather than the ostensible subject: religion, politics, whatever. BadChad did this in spades. All his threads became about him.
I realize that I look like I’m attacking someone who can’t defend himself, which isn’t cool. But I’m not really that pissed at Chad since he got what he had coming. I’m just astonished that he has a fan club. He’s simply an asshole and he’s not that smart. (Simply being an atheist doen’t make you intelligent.)
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Actually I get a rise every time cunt is expressed.
[/QUOTE]
Whereas I get a rise everytime cunt is exposed. Different strokes …
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
I assume you are referring to the stalking. Look, when the going gets tough, the tough get going.
[/QUOTE]
This is so easy. Let’s have a cut and dry, clear policy about stalking on the boards. Can’t imagine we’d need more than that in this specific case.
And you know, that was wrong that what happened to you flew under the radar, for lack of more information. But here’s my questions to you; 1.) Did you report every post (that screamed of stalking) to a moderator? If I was intentionally being harassed to the point that I could no longer enjoy myself here, that’s what I’d do. 2.) Did this member follow you outside of these sports/race debates? Show up there and absolutely NOwhere else? Which it appears badchad does.
If I remember correctly, we had a sorta similar situation not too terribly long ago. We had someone (Aldebaran – who obviously wasn’t much beloved among the SDMB denizens) being, I think, not more than a bit goaded, played-on over his user name and kinda stalked some (who did it though, I can’t recall). Anyway, the more popular of the two (not Alde) was reprimanded and told to change their ways. How is that not the same as this? No matter who you’re talking about or what their views, it comes across as pretty much standard issue to me.
Gah, in ‘real life’ when you have the so-called right to freedom of speech, you can find yourself in a whole shit load of trouble when you choose not to bend to the overt civil rules of society. You can be as anti-social as you can get away with, but usually there are limits, which are often upheld.
[QUOTE=faithfool]
This is so easy. Let’s have a cut and dry, clear policy about stalking on the boards.
[/QUOTE]
That’s easy? I dunno about you, but I’ve witnessed arguments that involved battling dictionary cites and micrometric analysis all so one (or both) parties can find some hairsplitting rationalization to claim that they were in the right all along. Further, I’ve seen cases where a mod says “knock it off” and the person warned responds with virtual backflips in arguing that no transgression took place, followed by passive-aggressive attempts to carry on as before (“I honestly don’t know if the Great White Mod will consider this over the line and I’ll retract it if it is, but your last statement is exactly what I might expect from someone who is the product of a drunken incestuous brother/sister coupling in which in addition to conception taking place, he gave her syphilis and she gave him gonorrhea, not that I’m actually saying you are the product of diseased drunken incest, just that if that statement had come from someone who was, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised”).
Any well-defined policy simply invites increasingly imaginative and time-wasting attempts to circumvent it. “Don’t be a jerk” covers all nicely.
But Bryan, in the circumstances that have outlined this kind of stalking, I do see it as simple. Two prongs addressed, actually. The first being amazingly showing up just where the other so happens to be. For example, I hardly ever go into MPSIMs, so if all of a sudden I was in there constantly because that’s where whoever (pick a name out of the air) hangs out and I only posts where they did, then I’d think that’s pretty obvious. Secondly, when you post on absolutely NOTHING else in conjunction with the above, I’d believe that, in my humble opinion, results in your basic message board stalking.