So why was Ammonius Saccus banned?

While I thought his arguments could use a little pruning I think the gist of them was sound. As I recall he was insulting to groups, not individuals and certainly no more “inflammatory” than Der Trihs or myself. He started a lot of threads but seemed to back them up ably and was responsive to the nuanced arguments of his opponents. I don’t see any official warnings given to him, nor any statements that he broke any rules, so what gives?

If it makes anyone feel better, while I might desire a long argument I don’t have the time, I just want to hear the reason for his banning, if there is one.

PS, and while I’m here, since when did it become a moderator function to say what could and could not be discussed in a given thread so long as everyone was playing by the rules?

Probably a sock puppet. They are usually banned without warning or fanfare.

Not sure, but it might have had something to do with the fact that he was posting drunk, spamming, and trolling.

For once, I agree with badchad. There is remarkably little difference between the subject and the author of this OP. They should be treated alike by the administrators of this site.

I think he was taking a clearly contemptuous tone about certain unnamable religious beliefs sacred to the PTB around here. Rather than come out of the closet of Religious Nutjobs, they feel safer just banning the fucker. Savers everyone time and anguish, if you stop to think about it.

“Saves everybody time and anguish” of course

Nope, his latests exploits included ignoring and being a jerk when it was pointed to him that it was stupid to say “Catholics are the most science haters” today. And even I am not a believer of Transubstantiation! His other jerkish action was to assume just by the act of explaining how wrong he was then me and others were defending the belief! :rolleyes:

And his last thread was to tell Cecil that he was a pussy for not telling readers Santa was a crock.

The idiot did not bother to check the dictionary for “joke” and “satire”.

Like I said, he was offending religious people.

This site promotes a subtle (and not-so-subtle) pro-religious and specifically pro-Chirstian bias, which is the single most heinous act of hypocrisy for a site claiming to be about fighting ignorance. Pretty much every other unsubstantiated belief system gets ridiculed mercilessly here, and rightly so, which is why I love this place, but somehow Christianity gets a free pass. Christians claiming unverifiable nonsense who get their feet held to the fire can depend on the SD mod cavalry coming to the rescue, sooner or later, often instantly.

I tolerate this stuff because the SD is otherwise a great place to learn about this planet, but I’ve long since had my eyes opened (from repeated rolling) about its over-the-top biases.

Because the administration of this board is in league with and supports the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church, and the poster in question was becoming a bit too effective at getting people to think a bit too closely abouQ*^%(O&E

That joke worked better in the days of ubiquitous dial-up Hayes-compatible modems, I grant you.

I wondered the same thing. I knew that his banning was going to cause trouble because he was a bomb thrower from positions that garnered a great deal of support. I looked at & tried to break it down fairly and I say that:** He was banned for trolling not for his POV.**
I base this on looking at the 13 threads he started in 2 weeks:

General anti- Religion 2, Anti-Dog 2, AntiCatholic 1, Anti-Burger King 1, Anti-Mormon 1, Anti truducken 1, Anti-Cecil 1, Anti-Israel 1, Anti-Body Language 1, Anti-Bill O’Reilly 1, Anti-Neko Case 1, Pro-Bears (NFL) 1


Turducken - Really hard to make?
Ammonius Saccus

Mormons - How could anyone buy into it?
Ammonius Saccus

Culture War - Religious cannot win a debate so they start a war.
Ammonius Saccus

Burger King - My Way - Bullshit ( Multi-page thread 1 2 )
Ammonius Saccus

Transubstatiation - Are Catholics the most science hating people on Earth? (
Ammonius Saccus

Cecil Adams = Punk Ass Bitch
Ammonius Saccus

Religion - A place to throw it all away?
Ammonius Saccus

Is really a public debate that Israel practices a form of apartheid in Israel?
Ammonius Saccus

Body language experts - Quacks?
Ammonius Saccus

Neko Case married Max Casella?
Ammonius Saccus

I’m going to sexually molest your dog.
Ammonius Saccus

Under Bill O’Reilly’s logic should I be able to rape woman?
Ammonius Saccus

Is it wrong to donate to the dog charity?
Ammonius Saccus

Bears to clinch home field advantage throughout playoffs
Ammonius Saccus

In the threads that he participated in I estimate that about 1/2 have people calling him a troll - but he posted so much that I don’t claim that this is anything other than a WAg - not claiming it is an exact estimate

Lets be clear: I’m not religious, he was a jerk, a jerk that agrees with me is still a jerk.

:rolleyes: I have seen many more believers complaining we are the hardest religion bashing site in the planet.

The bias in this last case was that the unbeliever started with straw men as arguments, I do not suffer idiots gladly specially when they say they support a side now dear to me. This is a site to fight ignorance, just because sometimes logic is on the side of believers (Catholics were right: Transubstantiation is a matter of faith and they do not kill you anymore if you dont believe on it, and they already accepted science will find the bread and wine does not change in this world) does not mean that overall they are right.

He was a sock puppet.

Generally, his posts would have gone away with his username, but several of his threads had already picked up quite a bit of activity and we figured (in this instance) that the disruption to the discussions would have been more detrimental to the board than making him disappear completely.

[ /Moderator ]

I knew he wouldn’t be long for this board when he went into bulldog mode about mormonism. You will get a chorus of backers here for bashing $cientology and also for bashing religion in general, but to bash mormonism you have to either begin or follow up with some disclaimer about “some of my best friends are mormons”. Then you should expect one or more of the mormons on board to start another “ask the mormon” thread where questions about inconsitancies in dogma and church history wil be ignored in favor of blowing their peculiar brand of celestial sunshine up your skirt. I see more than a bit of hypocrisy in this.

That too? :slight_smile:

Well, in my book those are the biggest kind of jerks. But now there is a better reason for the banning.

Of course, we’ll never know if he was or wasn’t. Personally, I think even the secretly pro-religious SD mods have a little too much integrity to lie about this, but since it’s a secret, we’ll just have to take their word that he was a sock.

What would it take to convonce you?

I’m an atheist. I know a few of the other mods are atheist, too. And the poster in question was a sock.

As far as I’m concerned, the religious mods are very good at keeping their views and feelings separate from their actions as mods.

Sockpuppetry is an absolute anathema in this Board.

The antirreligious can give as good as they take here – just badchad and Der Trihs, aggravating as they may be in their unapologetic bluntness, are alive and well in the Board, along with others. They’re not sockpuppets or trolls, are straightforward as to where they stand and usually stick to the issue being addressed. Being outnumbered in the debate by respondents from the other side does not necessarily mean there’s institutional bias against you, it just means you’re outnumbered.

Maybe we’ll just have to wait for Dan Brown’s next book, in which he exposes the read truth about the SDMB moderators.

I realize that, Lynn. Sorry I was ambiguous in suggesting that all of the SD mods were secretly religious. By"the secretly pro-religious SD mods" I meant “those SD mods who are secretly pro-religious.” You are not one of those.

What I think is that you’ve all come to some sort of compromise of your core values ('fighting ignorance") whereby in the name of some lame re-definition of tolerance, you’ve agreed to exempt Christianity, and other allied religions, from having to adhere to the same standard you reasonably demand from other whacked-out systems of belief.

Adhering to the same system, which would basically allow people to ask the same tough questions and be as abrasive and demanding of Christians as they’re allowed to be of Scientologists, Masonic conspiracists and Flat-earthers, would give the (correct) impression that Christianity is just another species of willful ignorance, and you don’t want to offend maybe half of your subscription base and maybe a large minority of your mods, so you compromise on this one issue and suck it up to make everyone happy.

Well, everyone but me. And this is still the best site on the planet, even with that central flaw, but I do feel the need to point it out in the holy name of fighting ignorance.