Say “habit,” instead. “Skill” implies that he’s good at it.
Thanks for supplying a link.
To give a parallel, say Jon Edwards opens up a thread called “Ask the Psychic.” His stated purpose is for people to ask questions about his psychic abilities. Now, I don’t personally believe in psychics; I think they’re hog wash. Were I to venture into his thread and say so, I would be out of line. Not because my opinion doesn’t have merit, but because the “Ask the Psychic” thread wasn’t the time or place for it.
In the linked thread, Tom didn’t ask anyone to suppress their criticisms of the Church of LDS, he simply stated that the “Ask me about LDS” thread wasn’t the place to post said criticisms. He did so respectfully and he also supplied a link to an existing thread so posters who did wish to criticize could do so without retribution. The fact that you said “…as they were about to unload on Dangermom” cements my argument.
Actual text of what for heaven’s sake? At any rate, your curiosity is insufficient grounds to start messing around with the idea that the staff needs to be able to discuss the behavior of posters without having those discussions bruted about at some later date. Since prr is on record as saying he would never believe anything I said, there is no point in my posting whatever single line I may have contributed, (something along the lines of badchad is probably a [pick your negative descriptor], but until he actually commits actions worth banning, we should not take that action) I may have contributed. It was no profound declaration of any lengtrh, just a throw-away remark that we should only act on evidence.
And you are, of course, wrong.
There exists a thread to do just what you want. A separate thread was opened to examine a different aspect of LDS belief. In that separate thread, attacks on the theology as it exists today were perfectly legitimate. Only trying to close the discussion by repeating the attacks of the first thread were prohibited.
Under your approach, any and every concept for which some (small) number of posters has a stick up their butts could be simply drowned out without anyone ever discussing the issue. *Could the Nazis have ever matched U.S. wartime production, given a couple of changes in their decisions in 1941? Oooh! Nazis are bad, there is no point in discussing that because we have to challenge anyone who posts on the topic to demonstrate why Nazis are not bad before they are permitted to discuss the issue. Could the U.S. South have developed an industrial economy using slaves, had they not seceeded? Oooh! Slavery is bad, there is no point in discussing that because we have to challenge anyone who posts on the topic to demonstrate why slavery was not evil before they are permitted to discuss the issue. What is the difference in beliefs between classic Arminianism and classic Calvinism? Ooooh! Religious belief is stupid, before anyone is permitted to discuss sub-categories of religious belief, they must first prove that religion is not simply nonsense and we will interrupt their silly threads until they give it up and admit that we are right. *
Meanwhile, all the explanations of policies, conduct, and belief–hypothetical or actual–including the introduction of actual history or actual published beliefs are drowned out by the people who insist on simply denying the legitimacy of the topic in pretty much the same way that certain Fundmentalist religious types would like to see some discussion prohibited in the public forum.
I know that you would enjoy simply drowning out any discussion of religion, but that is a rather stupid approach for someone who pretends to be “fighhting ignorance.” Much better to let people who understand the topic discuss it so that its opponents can see how their thoughts are organized than to simply suppress the discussion by attacking the people who hold unfavored opinions.
pseudotriton ruber ruber: What is your goal in all these recent rabid atheist threads?
As a partial defender of you I am interested.
I believe you are willing to promote a very unpopular position to highlight the Christian Bias of the board. Am I wrong about this? Do you believe that politely posting this will only generate some mild discourse and not change anything?
I believe you are way over the top about Tom, but maybe you feel you need to be to make your point and get people to at least look at the subject, even if you have to ruin your respect and standing in the SDMB community.
Jim
Ah, there’s the rub. See, the thing is, an “Ask the Psychic” thread would be absolutely ripped to shreds and driven through with a speeding locomotive faster than you can say skepticism. In fact, that’s whole POINT of of this “war” that’s going on here at the SDMB right now. How have you not gotten that yet?
Also, it’s very unlikely that a former senator and potential future presidential candidate would come here an start an Ask the Psychic thread. You should’ve used a better example.
No, ripping things to shreds is not the whole point, or even a portion of the point, of fighting ignorance. In fact, ripping to shreds is itself ignorant because all it does is alienate the people whose ignorance you then cannot eradicate because they’ve tuned you out. The point is to edify, not to destroy. Knowledge shouldn’t leave people feeling deflated and empty, sorry that they ever visited. It should leave them feeling enlightened and fulfilled. You hand-stabbers might not be ignorant, but you’re stupid as all get out.
Lynn is bound to have seen it. She’s even posted in this thread. The admission-of-trolling post is too old to report now, but they know. With three current threads calling him out, they can’t not know.
This may have already been mentioned in this train wreck of a thread, but just in case. I was watching a South Park marathon, and a two-parter covering (among other things) evolution and atheism had a hilarious sequence that made me think of our beloved board and all this huffing and puffing over the “real truth.” It seemed perfect:
Tom~, check your inbox.
And you’d be in the wrong once again.
Dude, you’re the President Bush of the SDMB. Your popularity is at an all time low and even your supporters are distancing themselves from you. Your “war” is a lost cause.
Don’t you dare call me a hand-stabber you prodigal jerk. I’m trying real hard.
And I never said ripping things to shreads was the whole point of anything. I simply said that it’s what would happen in that case.
Uhhh, cite? How is my popularity at an all time low and who is distancing themselves from me?
Didn’t we just recently have a poster that had a thread on divining get ripped to shreds and actually driven from the board? I think **Cisco ** might be correct.
I am curious, I do not know *Cisco ** yet. In what way is his popularity at and all time low. Can you show anything to back this strange statement up?
Jim
- Strange to me at least.
IIRC, it wasn’t an “Ask the Diviner” type thread, but was some guy with a bug up his ass about the Randi challenge. I’m pretty sure if the thread disappeared it would’ve had to’ve been a sockpuppet production. In any case, the thread in question would’ve been eligible for shred ripping, since it dealt with the “science” behind dowsing.
Was it Ask the Randi $1M challenge applicant? The OP is still among us.
That’s the one! Boy, I was wrong on both counts there, wasn’t I? But at least the thread wasn’t disappeared, and the poster wasn’t driven off of the boards.
(Thanks, Shoshana)
Please could you indicate to what the graped word ‘that’ applies in the above sentence? I read it the same way as Lib appears to have done - that it refers to the ‘ripping to shreds’. 
I did not say it did not deserve ripping, I only brought it up as an example similar to “Ask the Psychic”. The only “Ask the Psychic” thread I have seen was done as a humor only thread. I think in MPSIMS. If it had been a serious thread, I think the person would have been ripped to shreds despite it being an “Ask the” thread. Of course I think an “Ask the Bush Supporter” thread would also draw a lot of abuse. It does not have to be only about the spiritual. 
I do not think the thread was disappeared. I do not think I implied that.
On Preview: Thank you so much Shoshana, I think that was the thread I was thinking of. While the user isstill here, he did get ripped pretty hard in that “Ask the” thread and the mods allowed it for six pages until Tom locked it down. (mercy killing I think)
Jim
I value the respect of those whose respect I’ve earned, and regret having lost some respect I might have formerly accrued, but that’s what capital is for: to spend, and I consider this important enough to spend some capital on. Telling a large group of people “Excuse me, but your core values, which I really like, are totally fucked in one small but crucial area” is a good way to incur hostility and change nothing in the short term and probably nothing in the long term. But it needed to be done. Much as as I value your respect (and in your case, Jim, I do), I value my own a little more, and to observe a serious flaw in the application of this message board’s central mission and say nothing was unacceptable.
Probably this board will continue to fight ignorance as selectively as it has done to date. Maybe it will take years of posters pointing it out and getting shouted down by the majority of Xians, Xian-sympathizers, atheists who are willing to handle Xians with kid gloves in exchange for acceptance and respect they’re unwilling to grant otherwise, and mainly people who don’t care about this issue at all but merely want to have a civil, friendly board above all else. I understand why these people behave the way they do, but that doesn’t mean that they’re right, only that they constitute the vast majority of Dopers and will have their way whether they’re right or wrong.
I feel better for having pointed out the untoward toleration of one belief system over others here, unpopular as that has been, and I’m sorry so many posters have responded to my pointing out this issue with such personal animosity. I’d point it out again in a second.
As to Tom, I still find it inappropriate to have a Mod so defensive about the claims made by liberal Xians, because he is one himself, in charge of moderating heated debates between his brethren and atheists, especially when he can’t restrain himself from joining the debates as an active participant, switching to a Moderator’s role, switching back to a participant’s, while issuing very serious charges of 'trolling" that result often in banning. Coming from a participant, such charges may be made by a reckless poster who may not know how seriously accusations of trolling are taken around here–coming from a Mod, I conclude he knows how serious such charges are, but does it anyway. The leeway that Tom claims as a result of the changes in allowing trolling to be discussed more openly applies to posters, but among Mods “trolling” is still a categorical offense that will earn someone a ban. Indeed, I think it must and should earn at least a suspension, and all Mods should use that term very, very sparingly, and even more so in cases where they’re not prepared to act on it. Tom used it recklessly, and is still defending his use of the all-purpose epithet “troll.” I find it highly inappropriate behavior from a Mod, and if most Dopers disagree, that’s their privilege. I’m glad I brought it up for discussion, and I wish I were more effective in making my point.
I don’t really understand how you are misreading it. I’m saying that if someone started an Ask the Psychic thread, it would get ripped to shreds, but the big 3 are held in higher regard here. That is what is at the center of all this mess - several of us think that this is hypocritical (though most dopers obviously don’t.)