I’m sure that, in some part of that rancid lump of meat you call a brain, you think you’ve got some sort of legitimate point to make in this thread, and that my post somehow related to it. Well, fine. Consider it a Christmas gift.
Far be it from me to try to yank the thread back to it’s original purpose, but:
Based on this and nothing else, the banning of Ammonius Saccus was justified by his “Cecil Adams is a punk ass bitch” thread. Had he a legitimate objection to a column, he could’ve started a thread in the appropriate forum. What purpose could his choice of wording serve except as a loudspeaker announcement of “My efforts to piss all of you off aren’t working, so let’s try THIS!”
Frankly, I don’t see where this “persecution of atheists” meme is coming from, (any more than Aeschines’ occasional bleating of how those holding paranormal beliefs are being persecuted). I’m an atheist and I’ve never felt it, likely because I never made it my mission to piss people off.
That happens often enough on its own.
That’s funny 
Are you going for suicide by Mod, PRR? 'Cause from where I’m sitting you’re headed for a meltdown. And when Bad Chad comes acroos as calm and reasonable compared to you, my advice is to disconnect the keyboard and lock it up somehwere for a few days.
Charlie Tan, religion free since 1981.
How is it hypocritical? I have direct evidence that Catholics can be kind, intelligent, and decent: my mom. I’ve got similar evidence for Protestants, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, and Pagans. If someone starts calling people of those religions names, they’re insulting people I know and care about, and I’m more likely to say something. Making the same blanket insults about Scientologists is probably no more accurate, but I don’t have any sort of personal relationship with a Scientologists, so I’m less likely to be moved to respond. People are more likely to respond to a thread in which they have a personal interest. I have no personal interest in Scientology, so I’m not likely to get involved in an internet fight over them. That’s not hypocrisy, it’s just time management.
And if you think that Catholics are “in love with their religious hierarchy,” you should ask my mom about Pope Benedict some time. There’s very, very little love lost there.
It’s actually kind of funny. We’re supposed to take one guy’s word for it that he’s being horribly persecuted. More, we’re supposed to take his word for it that we’re being horribly persecuted. When asked for evidence, he evades, he points to things that have other explanations, he dodges and weaves, he misquotes others. It’s like watching a religion be born.
Doesn’t that normally require the founder have, y’know, charisma or something?
Hey, failed religions are still religions, you elitist.
I’d honestly be stunned to discover that the majority of the CIA, the BSA, and the FBI are LDS.
Well, maybe the monoculture is inherent in the organization. After all, there are a number of subcultures floating around and some other groups seem to have quite a few people in the group following the group’s subculture.
I’ll wait for a cite, if you don’t mind.
Assumption on your part. tom has stated in this very threat that his definition of “troll” is pretty much the same as everyone else’s: someone who stirs shit by spreading false info. Or, in tom’s own words: “Since badchad has made it a point to sinlge me out for his special attentions, I have not felt it appropriate to use my staff position to respond to him. In exactly one thread (where he attempted to rally the TM to abuse me, using, as I pointed out in that thread, false claims), I (as a poster) pointed out to him the reasons that I felt he was, in fact, behaving as a troll.”
Just because one of us comes off as a troll on occasion doesn’t mean they are a troll. That’s why TPTB issue warnings and save the summary bannings for socks.
And atheists.
Oops, was that my out loud voice?
You know, if you have to cite Tom, whom I’m arguing doesn’t know a troll from a boogeyman from a hole in his ass, then that’s pretty much admitting that you define a troll as “someone I don’t care for.”
Frank, you’re a funny guy.
Many of us really can’t anymore, so that is just as well. Did it ever occur to you that for many Christians, the same is true in reverse? It’s not really important that you take our word for anything.
I’m not sure which contention you are speaking about. If it is a simple matter of personal belief, you aren’t responsible to any of us for explaining those. If you have made accusations about the character of another Doper based on what you describe as “a very subjective perception that may or may not be true,” and you have done so at a time when you are too busy or too lazy to substantiate your claim, that is, in my opinion, jerkish behavior.
From one of those recent GD threads:
For the most part at the SD, I see atheists who have no problems with the moderate Christians who are here and moderate/liberal Christians who have no problems with the atheists who are mutually respectful.
I would like not to be blamed for what other people do under the name of Christianity. You are not responsible for what every American does or every male does or every New Yorker does or every Doper. You are not like everyone else in those groups. Neither are all Christians alike.
I hope you lose your bet and aren’t banned by New Year’s. 
And I’m arguing that you are reading something into tom’s posts that aren’t there, thus the reason for citing tom.
How 'bout I cite the staff report?
How 'bout you cite your own ass, cuz that’s what you’re talking out of?
What the hell that cite has to do with anything, I’ll never know. If a troll is really a troll, he’s eligible to be banned on that basis alone.
Badchad isn’t a troll, **Tom ** has accused him of being a troll, he’s been unable to persuade his fellow Mods of his contention, badchad’s still un-banned, Q.E. Fucking D., **Tom ** lacks a clue as to what does and does not constitute a troll.
And you still have no basis to suggest that tom has been “trying to pursuade his fellow Mods of his contention.” Give it a rest.
You kidding? He has the Holy Scripture of his own posts!
You don’t mean to suggest, in the alternative, that Tom has actually identified an active and pernicious troll operating freely on the SD, and yet has kept this information to himself despite his best beliefs, do you, Sam? Not even checked to see if anyone agrees with his positive and certain identification of this troll?
Don’t we all want trolls banned? They’re worthless disruptors of honest discourse, and I certainly hope all Mods are doing their level best to suss them out, and when they’re certain they’ve found one, to ban him ASAP.
Do you mean to suggest that Tom is laying down on the job?
Maybe not but chad does have a history of inciting emotional reactions–from Polycarp, in particular–and intentionally misleading others while attempting to incide an anti-tom pileon.
Which gets us back to that staff report. “Trolling aims to elicit an emotional reaction from those with a hair-trigger on the reply key.” “The main point about trolls is that they intentionally mislead others.”
I submit you are talking out your ass.
Actually, I meant to suggest that you’re making things up as you go along, as it suits your pre-conceived ideas.