So why was Ammonius Saccus banned?

[jayjay]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

I might send a few of the more blatant examples to some other Mods, but I sense the general defensiveness and skepticism on the boards in general would result in a lot of arguing and trainwrecks without much change of positions just now. You all seem a bit too hostile to the concept for me to try and persuade people in droves, so I deem it sufficient to state it as my opinion for now.

I’m not blaming you for your defensiveness–I’d probably be the same in your position–but it seems like a lot of work (argung about the interpretation of the threads, not just searching for the threads, though that’s a little bit of a chore too) for what looks like very little reward. Maybe some other time. For now, I’m just raising the issue, and accepting your skepticism.

Much as I hate to (in a limited fashion) agree with Shodan, the above is basically equivalent to someone coming into a thread and spouting off that tomndebb is a child molesting devil worshipper with three penises, then claiming that not only are you too busy to look up cites, you sense that the mood is hostile to you so you wouldn’t be able to convince anyone with those cites anyway, so maybe you’ll cite later…

I agree with Shodan’s latest post only to the point that your actions are certainly trollish in this case. I will not claim that’s your motivation.

[Liberal]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

No, I honestly believe that if he hasn’t actually busted your chops personally, you’d never have a reason to notice this tendency.

Interesting you should make that claim, the same claim many Christians make about their relationship with Jesus. Perhaps you could wow us with your analysis of why your claim is fundamentally different from theirs.

[Valteron]

The trouble is that moderators have all the latitude to pretend they are gods of impartiality since there is no precise definition of what is trolling or hijacking.

Dangermom’s thread about LDS theology is a prime example. If I want to know about LDS theology I can find it on their web site.

Now, in one of her postings, dangermom says, regarding the lack of one iota of archeological evidence for the BofM, that even if we discovered a whole Nephite City with inscriptions in “reformed Egyptian” it would not convert me.

When I try to answer something about archeology and the total lackof evidence for everything in the BofM, Tomndeb tells me not to “hijack” the thread, which has to be about Moromon theology only.

But the basis of Mormon theology is the alleged validity of the Book of Mormon.

As Sam Harris says in “the End of Faith” (an excellent book well worth reading, by the way. I got a copy for the Solstice celebration):

“Our situation is this. Most of the people in the world believe that the Creator of the universe has written a book. We have the misfortune of having many such books on hand, each making an exclusive claim as to its infallibility.”

So what is more natural for me than to challenge that claimed infallibility? I cannot challenge Dangermom’s theology with other theology, because I have no other theology. Arguing one theology against another is like arguing one fairy tale against another.

Was the evil queen who gave Snow White the Poison Apple the same one who caused Sleeping Beauty to prick her finger and fall asleep? Let’s have a debate on that. We can all quote chapter and verse pro and con.

And when I try to jump in and prove that both stories are folk tales written down by people like Andersen and the Brothers Grimm, and that both sides are talking nonsense, I will be “moderated” by someone like Tomndeb because I m “trolling” and “hijacking” the thread.

The simple fact is that in our world, religion gets a free ride, a “benefit of clergy”. If the Pope goes to Latin America and holds hungry orphans in his arms, the media calls him a saint. If I write a letter to the editor and ask if there would be fewer hungry orphans were it not for his Church’s opposition to contraception in Latin America, I get called a troll and an anti-Catholic bigot.

I will miss AS. I am not even sure what a sock puppet is (no doubt another demon invented by the moderators to justify their acts of censorship), but I will miss him.

[Caridwen]

I will miss AS. I am not even sure what a sock puppet is (no doubt another demon invented by the moderators to justify their acts of censorship), but I will miss him.

A sock puppet is someone who is either a person who was banned or is still a member and sets up a new account to post under a different name.

How is that an invention by the moderators and why on earth would you miss someone who did that?

[wonky]

@Der Trihs

The few times I recall him intervening in a thread I was arguing in, it was to slap down the other guy.

He’s reprimanded me a couple of times. I got over it.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@jayjay

Much as I hate to (in a limited fashion) agree with Shodan, the above is basically equivalent to someone coming into a thread and spouting off that tomndebb is a child molesting devil worshipper with three penises, then claiming that not only are you too busy to look up cites, you sense that the mood is hostile to you so you wouldn’t be able to convince anyone with those cites anyway, so maybe you’ll cite later…

I agree with Shodan’s latest post only to the point that your actions are certainly trollish in this case. I will not claim that’s your motivation.

If my opinion is as unlikely as a three-pronged Devil worshipper, I expect it to be dismissed as paranoid ranting. But most posters concede that there is, in fact, a bias towards Xians on the SD, and that if Tom were to be as pernicious as I’m suggesting, that would be a bad thing. They also say that they don’t think he is, and that the bias on the SD doesn’t bother them, so I can’t see much use in stirring the pot at this point. If I did that, that would be a waste of my efforts to little end, for sure, and since I’m not positive I can find the damning evidence I need, I would be risking acting like a troll, producing dubious support. When I think I’ve got the support, I’ll post it. Until then, regard (or disregard) this as one poster’s personal views.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Liberal

Interesting you should make that claim, the same claim many Christians make about their relationship with Jesus. Perhaps you could wow us with your analysis of why your claim is fundamentally different from theirs.

Jesus personally busts the chops of many practicing Xians? Never thought about it before like that, but I suppose you’re right.

[jayjay]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

But most posters concede that there is, in fact, a bias towards Xians on the SD, and that if Tom were to be as pernicious as I’m suggesting, that would be a bad thing.

I see a lot of posters acknowledging that there is a pervasive bias toward religiousity in most world cultures in general and in Western culture in particular (in the sense that the default worldview is religious), not that there is a bias toward Christians on the SDMB (in the sense that Christians are somehow lionized (if you’ll pardon the unintentional humor in using that phrase) above non-Christians).

The default worldview is religious (and, in the US (and, to a lesser extent, in Europe), Christian) because most of the population is religious. Yes, even here on the SDMB! There is a disproportionate percentage of agnostics/atheists/non-Christian religious people here, but the majority are still Christian. It’s a fact of life, one which must be lived with unless one wishes to go live in a cabin in the wilderness. If there is a bias toward Christians on this board that doesn’t stem from the overall pervasion of the religious/Christian worldview in the cultures that take the largest part of this board’s discussions, I haven’t seen it.

As for me, I take Jefferson’s dictum to heart. Beliefs, pockets, legs…as long as the former damages neither of the latter, have at it. Swimming Niagara Falls upstream doesn’t seem like a very effective or fun thing to be doing.

[Liberal]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

Jesus personally busts the chops of many practicing Xians? Never thought about it before like that, but I suppose you’re right.

Well, at least that’s progress — demanding of others no more than you demand of yourself. Now if we could get you demanding of yourself as much as you had demanded from others, we could lift you out of the Badchad ditch.

[Guinastasia]

@Liberal

Well, at least that’s progress — demanding of others no more than you demand of yourself. Now if we could get you demanding of yourself as much as you had demanded from others, we could lift you out of the Badchad ditch.

Sadly, I think he wants to stay in that ditch and play the poor persecuted little martyr.

[Liberal]

@Guinastasia

Sadly, I think he wants to stay in that ditch and play the poor persecuted little martyr.

You know what, Guin? I’ve always wanted to get along with you, and I’m glad that now I do. Maybe this isn’t pittish enough, but the funny thing about all this discussion lately with and about Badchad (who continues to ignore me completely) and Pseudo is that I’m hearing an awful lot of things that I myself should have listened to six-months/a-year ago. Things about presentation and tone and stuff like that. As I get older and fatter and breathe heavier, I’m discovering that formulating a sound argument isn’t enough. I mean, you can make the best widget in the world, but if you’re going to sell it with scowls and vinegar and screamed insults, people aren’t going to buy it anyway. Pseudo and his buddy keep saying how ignorant we are, but they are completely ignorant about this very important matter.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Liberal

You know what, Guin? I’ve always wanted to get along with you, and I’m glad that now I do.

Oh, get a fucking room.

@Liberal

. Pseudo and his buddy keep saying how ignorant we are, but they are completely ignorant about this very important matter.

Wait–it’s a bad thing or a good thing to call ignorant people ignorant? I’m just so confused.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

Wait–it’s a bad thing or a good thing to call ignorant people ignorant? I’m just so confused.

Well, that’s because your parents failed to educate you about proper time and place.

[Inner_Stickler]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

Wait–it’s a bad thing or a good thing to call ignorant people ignorant? I’m just so confused.

Well, it’s not nice nor persuasive. A much more palatable argument would have been something more along the lines of:
“I think that Tomndeb and the staff of the SDMB have a subtle (not-so-subtle?) bias towards Christians.
As proof I offer this thread, this thread and this thread. Yadayadayada.”

That probably would have yielded a better response than:
“Everybody hates me, everybody oppresses me, come see the violence inherent in the system and I’m too lazy to find anything that even comes close to resembling proof of my assertions.”

Not to be cliched but if you can’t be bothered to walk the walk, don’t talk the talk.

[Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley]

@tomndebb

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 ]

To make sure I understand- a sock puppet is someone who was banned earlier but figures out a way to come back with a different username, right?

Some people have too much disposable income.

[tomndebb]

@Don't Call Me Shirley

To make sure I understand- a sock puppet is someone who was banned earlier but figures out a way to come back with a different username, right?

Yep. It is an old UseNet term: a person who is losing an argument joins the discussion with a separate username and lends “support” to the person getting his or her butt kicked (as if the loser had a sockpuppet on one hand through whom he or she was speaking).

We use it a bit more loosely as the term that describes anyone who has more than one username–either simultaneously or serially.

[dropzone]

@Liberal

…I’m hearing an awful lot of things that I myself should have listened to six-months/a-year ago. Things about presentation and tone and stuff like that. As I get older and fatter and breathe heavier, I’m discovering that formulating a sound argument isn’t enough. I mean, you can make the best widget in the world, but if you’re going to sell it with scowls and vinegar and screamed insults, people aren’t going to buy it anyway.

Ain’t the occasional vacation from here a pleasure? You come back with some perspective and internet life just goes a lot smoother. For myself, I’ve found not getting involved, beyond drive-bys, is what serves me best.

[Cervaise]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

Wait–it’s a bad thing or a good thing to call ignorant people ignorant? I’m just so confused.

I am a hard atheist (i.e. I actively believe that there’s no God, and indeed no supernatural forces of any variety in the world), and I think you’re an asshole.

(Liberal — good to see you back. Whether you and I disagree on anything or even, as it were, everything, the boards are inarguably more interesting with you around.)

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

More confused than ever–If I feel about someone the way you feel about me, you think it’s a good thing if I write a post calling him an asshole? Or is that just reserved for people you think are assholes? Help me out here, 'cause there’s a lot of folks who seriously need being called all sorts of names, but i’ve been holding myself back because it’s, you know, rude and uncivil and all that.

Or I had thought so until you began educating me. So what do you say: you want to see more posts from me heaping out abuse or fewer? I’m hoping you’ll go for “fewer” (I’m very lazy and it’s a lot of work to dish out abuse to everyone who needs it) but please set me straight.

[Cisco]

@John Corrado

I think every future GD thread about “Why don’t Americans trust or like atheists?” needs to be linked to this thread.

I take umbrage with this. How many times have we heard about how unfair it is to point to Falwell or Robertson or Haggard, or Baker or Swaggart or bin Laden, etc. ad nauseam, when talking about theism? That’s not fair - they’re not representative.

That ad hominem attacks against atheists are being accepted in lieu of actual discourse in the current crop of atheism-themed threads is hypocritical and frustrating to the point of of disgust.