[QUOTE=Liberal]
I’m a little surprised — okay, okay, I’m thoroughly blindsided — by the reason for the ban. The signature item, which I’d never seen until today when I looked at his profile (I have signatures turned off), seems perfectly benign. Other than the fact that it quotes the object of his career obsession, there is nothing trollish, jerkish, or intimidating about it that I can see.
[/QUOTE]
I’m surprised as well. Only because I thought I was all alone with disgust for that signature. It was personal harrassment pure and simple. The banning is well deserved.
Still, I admired badchad for not being afraid to take on the more popular and respected Christian posters. While I have evolved to become a “liberal” christian myself, I see a lot of stuff in there that is debatable and thoroughly cherish the able responses to badchad’s challenges that help strengthen my faith. Without badchad, I’m afraid the liberal christians will simply get a free ride.
Fortunately, badchad’s value to me has run its course.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
Real X-tian thread what with all the sentiments expressed in it.
You got your pound of flesh, why not give it a rest and lock this thing? Guess Jesus was the gloating kind.
[/QUOTE]
Seems to me that there’s at least as many atheists that are happy he’s gone.
Count me as another hard atheist who strongly supports the banning. Deliberate harassment has no place on this board, no matter what one’s point of view. I’m only surprised the banning took as long as it did.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
If you wouldn’t mind explaining one more thing, Giraffe — what was the problem with the signature? Why was it forbidden?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
One of the conditions of badchad’s return was that he drop his stated campaign targeting Polycarp. We removed a Polycarp quote from his signature and told him not to replace it with anything similar as part of this.
[/QUOTE]
When you do your Righteous Indignation thing, do you EVER read the previous replies?
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Still, I admired badchad for not being afraid to take on the more popular and respected Christian posters.
[/QUOTE]
He wasn’t taking them on. He was trolling against them–attacking them in threads where his so-called points had no relevance to the issues at hand. Not only that, he was dishonestly playing games with the language, what I like to call “moving target argument” on this board.
I’m glad he’s gone permanently now. Nobody on any side of any issue needs help like his.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
Real X-tian thread what with all the sentiments expressed in it.
You got your pound of flesh, why not give it a rest and lock this thing? Guess Jesus was the gloating kind.
Enjoy.
::::shrug:::
[/QUOTE]
I support banning posters who behave like jerks. That badchad self-identified as an athiest is largely irrelevant to that, other than providing his motivation.
In fact, the reason that so many other athiests are jumping in here is to disabuse anybody from thinking that we all act like this.
I do agree that a posthumous pile-on doesn’t really add value, especially as the target can’t defend himself. The only reason I’m in here at all is to make the point above. Cheers.
[QUOTE=Talon Karrde]
So, is it going to be a policy now that we can’t quote someone in our sigs without their permission/against their wishes, or is this a special case?
[/QUOTE]
I suspect if you’re asked to change your sig and you don’t, yea, expect problems.
[QUOTE=Talon Karrde]
So, is it going to be a policy now that we can’t quote someone in our sigs without their permission/against their wishes, or is this a special case?
[/QUOTE]
No, this is a special case (and permission/lack thereof to use the quote had nothing to do with it.) As a general rule, you don’t need anyone’s permission to put a quote in your sig, although many people do like to ask first as a courtesy.
[QUOTE=wring]
I suspect if you’re asked to change your sig and you don’t, yea, expect problems.
[/QUOTE]
Yep, that’s what it boils down to. Actually a stupid fuckup on chads part. He might have made it except for that. Well, at least for a little while longer.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
… I don’t think I EVER saw him post on any other subject than religion-nothing on movies, or books he read, nothing about annoying coworkers, or anything like that.
[/QUOTE]
I was about to say he posted once in the Cafe to say he liked Matrix: Revolutions, but upon searching, I see I was mistaken. The thread was in the Pit, though it was still a break from his usual fixation.
Odd that he would go for a film with so much Christ/Revelations imagery.
[QUOTE=Schuyler]
In fact, the reason that so many other athiests are jumping in here is to disabuse anybody from thinking that we all act like this.
[/QUOTE]
No, not at all. I’m a hardcore atheist, too; so much so that I’m not in the least defensive about it, as your (and others’) interpretation suggests. I had no desire for badchad to shut up because he made me look bad. My position doesn’t need such political consideration, because it’s the simple truth. He needed to go away because he was a destructive asshole who was making the Dope an unpleasant place to visit. The fact that his position, on one particular subject, was, at base, similar to mine, is utterly irrelevant: he was an asshole. The subject matter didn’t matter a hoot.
Still, I admired badchad for not being afraid to take on the more popular and respected Christian posters. While I have evolved to become a “liberal” christian myself, I see a lot of stuff in there that is debatable and thoroughly cherish the able responses to badchad’s challenges that help strengthen my faith. Without badchad, I’m afraid the liberal christians will simply get a free ride.
.
[/QUOTE]
Naw, Diogenes the Cynic does it better. Cites, arguments, and a real knowledge of the Faith and the Bible.
[QUOTE=lissener]
No, not at all. I’m a hardcore atheist, too; so much so that I’m not in the least defensive about it, as your (and others’) interpretation suggests. I had no desire for badchad to shut up because he made me look bad. My position doesn’t need such political consideration, because it’s the simple truth. He needed to go away because he was a destructive asshole who was making the Dope an unpleasant place to visit. The fact that his position, on one particular subject, was, at base, similar to mine, is utterly irrelevant: he was an asshole. The subject matter didn’t matter a hoot.
[/QUOTE]
I think perhaps I didn’t make myself totally clear, because your statement agrees pretty much with my post - the justification for the banning was jerkitude. Not all atheists behave like jerks, nor do we apply a litmus test for belief/non-belief in a deity/deities to those with whom we will be friends or act with civility towards (I don’t suggest that badchad did this, especially not IRL, but that his posting history might have given this indication).
And he created at least one other account, that during his suspension. Despite the later denial I’m persuaded he bragged about it.
But overall: Fundamentalists oppose the evidence vs Liberal Christians believe in the supernatural; how difficult is it to work out why the former are common objects of derision?
But overall: Fundamentalists oppose the evidence vs Liberal Christians believe in the supernatural; how difficult is it to work out why the former are common objects of derision?
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps for another thread, but that statement is fundamentally goofy. I mean, as an atheist, I would not be able to separate the two. I would be against both, although not with derision, to a point.
Perhaps you mean some fundamentalists like to point to supposed dinosaur tracks next to human for example, and liberal christians can understand and embrace science, while still having faith?
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I never had a problem with badchad, but can understand why he was banned.
[/QUOTE]
I feel the same way. I imagine there will be another like him though, and I don’t mean a sock, just somebody who will yank chains. Such is the nature of the board.
