[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
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?
[/QUOTE] tom’s own words from the aformentioned failed attempt to incite a pileon, as it appears you need your memory refreshed:
[QUOTE=Lute Skywatcher]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know who said that “Read on, MacDuff…” portion of your quote, but it wasn’t me, despite your (dishonest or incompetent?) suggestion that it was.
badchad is usually pretty calm and pretty rational, far from emotional in either his tone or in this desired response. Are you blaming him for the fact that people tend to go crazy around here when they feel intellectually challenged? That’s hardly his concern, as long as he’s not eliciting such a response, which he is not. And even some of badchad’s more honest adversaries grant that he is not misleading people on purpose.
Oh, and if pseudotriton ruber ruber and badchad can stop fellating each other’s egos for a few minutes, they might want to do a search on the following names:
-Wildest_Bill
-lekatt
-His4ever and/or Lynn73
I’d advise searching them as terms, rather than as users, since it’d be easier to find them.
Then come back here and tell me the mods have a hard-on for persecuting atheists.
You guys are JUST LIKE the fundies, like Pat Robertson and Jack Chick, only you’re the atheist version. Does that make you happy? Is that your entire goal?
(There are probably others I’m forgetting, so if someone else can think of them, feel free to post them as well)
I don’t know why the fuck you expect us to believe your claims about Tom, pseudotriton ruber ruber, if you won’t even bother to back them up. Why should we believe you, when you’ve gone out of your way to insult a great many here at the Dope that we consider friends?
So quit talking out of you ass-put up or shut up, asshole.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
I don’t know who said that “Read on, MacDuff…” portion of your quote, but it wasn’t me, despite your (dishonest or incompetent?) suggestion that it was.
[/quote]
Simple coding error. I’ve asked for it to be fixed.
I’ll take your word for it being as I try to stay out of religious debates, but this gets into what I said earlier about people coming off as a troll on occasion not meaning they are a troll. Trollish behavior is sometimes unintentional; for example, caused by drunkenness.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
I don’t know why the fuck you expect us to believe your claims about Tom, pseudotriton ruber ruber, if you won’t even bother to back them up. Why should we believe you, when you’ve gone out of your way to insult a great many here at the Dope that we consider friends?
So quit talking out of you ass-put up or shut up, asshole.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the suggestion, Guin.
As I’ve said, I don’t expect or even want people to believe what I suspect about Tom’s confusing his roles as Mod and as a virulent defender of Xianity. On tjhe contrary, I expect that I will be doubted, which is fine with me. if he continues his (so far) subtle attempts to intimidate non-Xians from participating in GDs , eventually I’ll gain some support, but I expect none right now.
The greater likelihood is that he’ll clean up his act, or that someone will chastise him. But I’m not interesting in getting into a big pissing contest with cites, and counter-cites, and so on–I’m just telling you what I think. Believe me or don’t, it’s all the same. If I’m right, maybe this will make for a better board. (Personally I think it’s an error to assign someone like Tom, with a dog clearly in the fight, to moderate GD, but what do I know? Better to find someone a little more neutral and avoid this whole issue of bias.) And if it should turn out I’m wrong about Tom (stranger things have happened), I’ll apologize for besmirching his name and wasting everybody’s time.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Personally I think it’s an error to assign someone like Tom, with a dog clearly in the fight, to moderate GD, but what do I know? Better to find someone a little more neutral and avoid this whole issue of bias.
[/QUOTE]
Just how are we supposed to find someone with no opinions on religion or politics, who nonetheless has enough brain function to operate a computer, and what makes you think such a person would be a good moderator even if we could find one?
Conspiracy nuts could look at your posts here and say, “Dude, that’s whacked out.” You may wish to take one of the following suggestions:
[ol][li]List all the members of the SDMB, followed by their religion, and then put a “yes” or a “no” after if for “Mods persecute them.” Finally, tally the total “yes” and “no” counts and realize you’re whacked out.[/li]Or just give it a rest.[/ol]
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
“someone with no opinions on religion or politics, who nonetheless has enough brain function to operate a computer”= “someone a little more neutral”
Talk about either/or reasoning!
[/QUOTE]
What beliefs are acceptable for moderators to have in order to qualify for your vaunted “more neutral” status?
[QUOTE=Monty]
I’d honestly be stunned to discover that the majority of the CIA, the BSA, and the FBI are LDS.
I’ll wait for a cite, if you don’t mind.
[/QUOTE]
Well, as soon as I find a solid cite on the CIA’s recruitment policies over the last thirty years, I’ll start a thread. It’s a bit difficult.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
What beliefs are acceptable for moderators to have in order to qualify for your vaunted “more neutral” status?
[/QUOTE]
You do such beautiful snide.
The best moderator of GD, I suppose, would be someone who in all his posts has never revealed a position one way or the other on GD hot-button topics. But, as this would probably reduce the pool too far, and yield candidates utterly unfamiliar with GD issues, I’d say a better description would be “someone whose views on hot-button GD topics has never revealed a strong tendency towards one extreme or the other.” That should give you several strong candidates, but would clearly rule out Tom.
Really not all that tough a call. Mods with overt biases are obviously undesirable. This isn’t rocket surgery.
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Well, as soon as I find a solid cite on the CIA’s recruitment policies over the last thirty years, I’ll start a thread. It’s a bit difficult.
[/QUOTE]
Go for it. Since it’s illegal to discriminate for or against job applicants on the basis of religion, that should be a fun hunt. If you start a thread on it, I’ll be happy to participate there instead of carrying this hijack on here.
Can anyone find a copy of “The Darker Side of Virtue: Corruption, Scandal and the Mormon Empire”? It seems to have a lot of references to the FBI’s ‘Mormon Mafia’. I don’t have the academic credentials to get at the JSTOR site.
says
This article is from a VERY BAD website, but they claim it matches a Salt Lake Tribune article. The original article is not available through the archive search, but was here. http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2648350
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
The best moderator of GD, I suppose, would be someone who in all his posts has never revealed a position one way or the other on GD hot-button topics.
[/quote]
So a cipher who is secretly a fundie is better than Tom?
I don’t think a person without overt biases exists. I have an overt bias (mine’s even more demonstrable when it comes to abortion debates). Your bias is so overt it casts a shadow on Cleveland. Since I can’t think of any candidates, can you name a name or two? I doubt I would agree with who you name, but I’d think it interesting to learn who they are.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
So a cipher who is secretly a fundie is better than Tom?
.
[/QUOTE]
At this point, I would say a retarded cocker spaniel would be better than Tom. Oh, give the stupid bitch a chance.
What’s interesting is that you seem to think that everyone but you and I are qualified. I have no idea who would do a good job, but I’ll accept the starting point of “anyone but me, jsgoddess, Tom, Badchad, Polycarp, Jimmy Swaggart, the Pope, and Der Trihs.”
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
What’s interesting is that you seem to think that everyone but you and I are qualified. I have no idea who would do a good job, but I’ll accept the starting point of “anyone but me, jsgoddess, Tom, Badchad, Polycarp, Jimmy Swaggart, the Pope, and Der Trihs.”
[/QUOTE]
I said that no one was qualified under your standards. Under my standards, few are qualified. I don’t require “no overt bias” which is an impossible standard to meet. I’d prefer to know exactly where mods stand.
So, what am I supposed to glean from your answer? If there are “several strong candidates” that should have leaped instantly to my mind, where are they? I know you certainly aren’t being serious with your tiny little list of exclusions. In this thread, you’ve accused way more people than that of persecuting you, atheist and believer alike.
When I ask for names, you evade.
When you were asked for cites, you evade.
If your case is so slam dunk, and these names so obvious, why are you being coy?
[QUOTE=badchad]
Well clearly any discussions in this thread as to whether or not I am a troll is off topic as to my original post and sure looks like the latter flavor. So where are your admonishments? Where are your instructions for these posters to start their own thread?
[/QUOTE]
Serious lack of reading comprehension? Or more of your dishonesty?
The issue of hijacking as jerk behavior was raised in connection with posters entering a thread for the explicit purpose of disrupting the thread or of responding only to tangential issues to the OP. My initial contribution to this thread was simply to point out the exact answer to you question–an answer that has been confirmed by Lynn Bodoni and other staff. All subsequent participation on my part has been in response to attacks by you and you fan club of one.
Since no reasonable person could construe my responses to you and your buddy as an attempt by me to hijack “your” thread, it is clear that you are simply making stuff up.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
We disagree on the meaning of “troll,” then.
To you, as to Tom, it’s close to meaningless: it’s basically “someone who really pisses me off.”
But to me, and the rest of the board when they’ve got their heads screwed on just right, it’s very specific. It means “Someone whose purpose here is to provoke, with insincere but outrageous OPs or responses, who typically attempts only rarely to engage in genuine discussion, and to whom resolving issues is an undesirable end.” Or something to that effect. That’s what it means, pretty much, and that seems to be the definition that gets people banned for being trolls.
[/QUOTE]
Your second quoted sentence is simply a lie.
Now, to pretend this, he has to claim that his targets are “nominal” Christians (so, apparently, he is not even attacking “real” Christians), and, as his attacks on AHunter3 and cosmosdan demonstrate, he is quite willing to go after posters who are not even “nominally” Christian (in contradiction of his claim that I have quoted) as long as the poster happens to express any form of belief.
Sorry. To me that is consistent with trolling (looking for a fight for fight’s sake). That he may actually hold some of the positions he argues usually keeps it from being out and out trolling, but it remains consistent with trolling behavior, (which I how I usually express it). However, when he does his little victory dance, then his need to declare “I win” seems to trump his actual opinions and move it into the realm of actual trolling.
[/quote]
As for any animus I bear toward badchad, there are few posters who actually anger me (and I am generally surprised at the number of posters who allow themselves to get mad about message board encounters). badchad is simply a minor irritant because he so successfully lures other posters into fruitless discussions in which he makes personal attacks. Since he does not do that on a daily basis and since (slowly) other posters are realizing that he never debates in good faith, he is less of an irritant than he used to be. “Pissing me off” is such an overwhelming exaggeration of the mild contempt in which I hold him that your definition could not be a valid one even lacking the specific actions he has undertaken that have moved me to consider his actions trolling.
Believe me, it does.
[/quote]
in which badchad announced his pleasure, not in silencing a believer, but in causing that poster to choose to lose pleasure in participating on this board. I’m sure that you bought the rationalization he later provided, but he had a clear opportunity to say that he was happy that Polycarp posted less on religious topics, but, instead, announced his pleasure that Poly posted less, period.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
As I’ve said, I don’t expect or even want people to believe what I suspect about Tom’s confusing his roles as Mod and as a virulent defender of Xianity. On tjhe contrary, I expect that I will be doubted, which is fine with me. if he continues his (so far) subtle attempts to intimidate non-Xians from participating in GDs , eventually I’ll gain some support, but I expect none right now.
[/QUOTE]
You’ve gone fucking insane. Tom a “virulent defender” of Christianity? Nonsense.
He is entitled to his personal views of posters, as are all we moderators. He doesn’t like you, he doesn’t like badchad, so what? What you have singularly failed to do (to this point) is demonstrate that his personal feelings have affected his actions as a moderator. Can you demonstrate that?
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Serious lack of reading comprehension? Or more of your dishonesty?
[/quote]
No, just your hypocrisy, AGAIN.
Any responses regarding my trollness should have been taken to another thread, assuming your not a hypocrite and really care about preserving the integrity of the original subject of a thread. Since they weren’t, and you gave no admonishments to others who also took my thread off topic, I’m happy to rest my case, thank you very much.
Also, I don’t think anyone but you, and perhaps dangermom think Valteron, Cisco, TokyoPlayer, etc. were exhibiting jerk behavior in the thread you were throwing your moderator muscle around. In the future I would suggest you appeal to rules that are less subjective when you try to curtail the discussions of others. Thanks in advance.