Can we have a new rule in GD

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Czarcasm

In the first two examples, I am defending against a ridiculously tight definition of “Christian”(Oh! How devious can an atheist get!), and the other two examples have nothing at all to do with Christianity, atheism or even religion in general. In fact, in that last example, I was only one among many to point out that he needed to pad out his post a bit more. Are you going to admonish the moderator for closing the thread for that very reason?
I’ve seen weak sauce before, but this crap is bone dry.

Woosh.

@Morgenstern

Do you really think anyone is invested in Czarcasm’s behavior to the point that they would spend the time necessary to compose, document and edit said thread. Using that little red triangle in the future will be so much easier.

I just did all of that composing and documenting. It was easy. And people pit others all the time.

To be clear, I see nothing wrong with reporting posts you find objectionable. But I see a lot of unsubstantiated and frankly bogus attacks on Czarcasm and if my perceptions are accurate such kvetching is dishonorable. If you are invested enough to attack someone, you should be invested enough to back up your claims.

[Czarcasm]

@Measure_for_Measure

Woosh.

Whoops, sorry.

[Czarcasm]

@Morgenstern

Do you really think anyone is invested in Czarcasm’s behavior to the point that they would spend the time necessary to compose, document and edit said thread. Using that little red triangle in the future will be so much easier.

You are invested enough to complain about me more than once in this thread about some supposed constant problem you can’t seem to find an example of.

[Princhester]

@BigT

Then why are you here? It already is an impermissible point. The topic is not “is Scientology real” but “What does Scientology say about X.” The post is relevant to the first question, but not to the second. In the context of the second topic, it’s just a way to say “It’s fake, so who cares?”

I don’t know why neither you nor Czarcasm can tell the difference between the premise of a thread and the topic.

Nobody has said “who cares?” that’s just shit you are trying to hang on me to make it seem like I’m being less reasonable than I am.

I understand the difference perfectly. I also understand two other things:

[ol]
[li]the reality of something can impact on the finer points of understanding of it. See my post #57. For example; let’s say there is a contradiction in a holy book of some kind and someone says “how are these things reconciled within the religion”. An appropriate answer might be that they are not; that many/most religions contain contradictions that are not reconciled and cannot be reconciled because they are a load of BS that people have made up, and current followers have sufficient capacity for self delusion and/or cognitive dissonance to ignore the contradiction.[/li][li]There is already a rule against threadshitting yet the OP wants some other rule. Why? Well look at his posts on the first page in particular. It’s pretty clear (witness his initial 9/11 comment) that he’s special pleading for widely accepted myths like religion. When someone uses the 9/11 example he doesn’t say “yes I think that would be threadshitting too” he says there is no comparison. There’s either a rule about this or there isn’t.[/li][/ol]

[Fenris]

@Czarcasm

You are invested enough to complain about me more than once in this thread about some supposed constant problem you can’t seem to find an example of.

Can you provide some examples of that?

[Irishman]

How did this thread become a thread about Czarcasm?

@Fenris

Can you provide some examples of that?

Posts 82

Czarcasm, IMHO you are a “witnessing atheist” in most religious threads. I get it. Be what you please, but constantly flying that flag in any religious thread gets somewhat old and boring. You’re a good poster but, in religious threads, you’re far too predictable.

Post 84 in reply to Czarcasm’s call for explanation.

Awesome use of rubber - glue.

Post 107

I didn’t call it a problem. I did not say you were problematic. I simply said that you’re posting in many threads that you’re an Atheist and/or some other thing(s) representative of an Atheist POV.

I have no problem with what you believe or don’t believe. If you want to witness for Atheism, so be it, but doing it in a thread where someone is genuinely interested in a religious tenet…etc.etc.etc.

While he says he didn’t say it was a problem, he did say “constantly flying that flag in any religious thread gets somewhat old and boring”. Sounds like he considers it at least something of a problem.

So, three bitches in this thread about Czarcasm when he could have started a pit thread. Or just push the red triangle thing on the posts that annoy him.

So, just to recap, that’s three posts of investment, but a refusal to actually dig up the goods, and a whine that it’s easier to just push the red triangle than to dig up the goods but apparently it’s easier to whine in ATMB than to push the red triangle or post in the Pit.

[Drunky_Smurf]

Do you think he should have had more posts of investment?

[MrDibble]

@Irishman

How did this thread become a thread about Czarcasm?

because Fenris has a little crush…

[engineer_comp_geek]

Moderator Note

@Fenris

Can you provide some examples of that?

Let’s stop trying to make the thread about Czarcasm and focus on the actual topic of this thread, which is the moderation of posts related to religious topics in GD.

[Slow_Moving_Vehicle]

@Peter_Morris

Since there isn’t any specific rule against it, I didn’t think reporting it would have any effect. If my proposed rule is accepted, I would be able to report future problems for something specific.

Well, not reporting it didn’t have much of an effect, did it?

What I keep asking is why you think a special anti-threadshitting rule is needed for religious threads, as opposed to, say, political threads. What’s so special about religion threads?

It’s academic at this point, I guess, since pace Jonathan Chance your proposed rule is a non-starter. But I’m curious.