No!
I don’t think it matters if it’s in GD or MPSIMS. If you’re going to take the time to reply to a post it should include your thoughts on the subject not just flat denials/dismissals.
In GQ where it was originally opened, there is some argument to be made that the premise defies known limits of the universe and therefore a factual answer would be impossible to provide. But even there, simply posting “no, because that’s wrong” is, at least IMHO, sorely lacking any substance or insight. I’d still consider it semi-threadshitting if no other argument were offered.
If I were king, I would have actually closed the thread instead of moving it for reasons I won’t elaborate on here. And that is about as instantly dismissive of an action that could be taken. But given the thread exists and has conversation in it, it’s threadshitting to do what the subject of this OP did.
I’d have no complaint at all about anyone making significant arguments totally demolishing their premise, but I just see that as a big waste of time so don’t do much of it myself.
That depends on how it is done. Demonstrating that the belief is internally inconsistent would be fine. Challenging the OP to provide evidence to the claim is fine. Neither of those options was the approach I Modded in the thread in question.
This line of crap has no basis in reality. Arguments about religious topics go on all the time around here, with many people taking positions that directly contradict my beliefs, and I let them go without comment. Given that reality, accusing me of trying to protect a poster whose beliefs I do not share is just silly. Beyond that, there have been any number of rationalist/materialist threads in which some true believer has jumped in attacking the premise where I have admonished that poster to refrain from confusing their beliefs with evidentiary or demonstrable reality.
Your claims are not based in reality and your attempts to attribute my actions to your perceptions of my personality are no more real than the thoughts of the OP in question.
You seem to be the only one who appears to be “changing facts.”
meh
Yes it is because everyone knows that Star Wars is all made up, and it therefore goes without saying that the question is being asked is about the fictional universe.
I would explain to you the difference between that type of OP, and the OP under discussion, but for the fact I’ve done so several times now and if you were going to understand, you would have by now.
Yes! 
Is that so? Feel free to be specific.
Upthread you said that your moderation was justified because you had done similar things in other philosophical discussions before admitting later that it wasn’t a philosophical discussion. You said it was inappropriate to dismiss an OP as nonsense when no one in the thread had done so. You said it was inappropriate to call a thread “wrong” even though no one had done that (your quotation marks, by the way, even though it wasn’t a quote).
And how are the examples of moderation in the same way over 17 years coming along?
Hey, thanks for setting me straight on these matters. If only you’d been here for the first seven years of my participation on these boards to set me straight. You could have told me what threadshitting was even before it was defined (and afterward). You could have set me straight on what did and didn’t matter and what was and wasn’t appropriate.
Has it occurred to you that by your own post your own post is illegitimate? Firstly you purport to “set me straight” which you say isn’t your job (or maybe it is your job but isn’t mine?). Secondly you attack my premise. Thirdly, despite not accepting my premise, you are participating in the thread.
It doesn’t matter how much longer you have been on the boards than I have since I know what threadshitting is and you don’t. And again the term is not an SDMB term. It has a correct definition that applies here or anywhere else. It wasn’t first defined here and I, and just about everyone else in this conversation, are in agreement what it means.
You’re trying to use this general description you found in some glossary of terms as though it’s a carved stone tablet the mods have to follow to the letter, but it isn’t. The poster threadshit. The mod modded them for it. It was correct moderation.
If I was to threadshit your post I would just reply “nope. it was threadshitting” with no argument as to why. I’ve provided more argument than should be necessary to clearly demonstrate why your premise is flawed.
As to the rest, ATMB is a special place on the boards in that certain rules of regular posting can’t be applied the same way as in general forums - for example anyone discussing any rules violations by other posters in here other than a mod is junior modding by definition, but it’s appropriate to do so in ATMB. I guess that wasn’t apparent to you either during the seven years you spent here before I came along to set you straight. Glad to help.
No, it is not. That’s the whole point. Like many ATMB threads these days, this is about how the GD/Election mods are moderating differently than you would in the past. History hasn’t been the guiding factor since at least the big mod purge.
The OP asserts that demons are real. The replies argues that they are not. One person is witnessing (stating beliefs as fact), the other is counter-witnessing. One person stated their beliefs, and the other person stated theirs. Neither provides actual religious traditions to back them up.
Now, you can argue that telling the poster that they aren’t welcome here is a personal attack, but that would again be new moderation, since such claims have gone unmoderated before. As long as they are stated like “If you believe X, then you won’t like this board,” they fly all the time.
Yes, you do sometimes tell people who say “God isn’t real” that they are threadshitting. But the OP of those threads are of the form “According to Christianity, What does god…”
This is different. This was an OP that was witnessing. And counter-witnessing has always been allowed. To my chagrin at times, when it seemed people were mocking Christianity. (Hence why witnessing threads never go well.)
You should try reading your posts from an outsider’s point of view. They’re getting increasingly hilarious. You are asserting (yes, just asserting) more and more vociferously, based on nothing, that your position is right and mine is wrong, but you seem impervious to how silly that makes you look in the context of your own position.
I’m sure you think so. It’s not at all uncharacteristic of posters who think their opinion is of key importance to confuse assertion with argument. But coming from someone who posted earlier that threadshitting was what in your opinion it was, and that the definition provided in the FAQ is subordinate to your opinion (and uncited allegations of historical meaning), your commentary on your own posts is laughable, frankly.
By the way, you might like to actually go back through this thread and do some counting. Because by my count, about 8 people think I’m right, about 5 think you are, and about 2 are on the fence but seem to tend towards my definition. That isn’t my opinion, that’s the facts. So you might want to think about how it is that you can write “I, and just about everyone in this conversation are in agreement” about the definition of threadshitting, when (a) there is no consensus and (b) by majority you are wrong.
Kidding yourself much?
It’s based on what threadshitting is. There’s nothing ambiguous about it. I’ve seen lots of “nope, you’re wrong” posts moderated similarly over the short 8 years I’ve been here and this was no different. Except that the content of the OP in this case is so incredible that you and others seem to have decided the rules don’t matter - if the post is stupid in your view then it’s fine to threadshit in it. But as can pretty easily be seen by the moderator action in the thread and the fact that it isn’t being reversed despite your misplaced arguments, it obviously isn’t fine with the moderators.
The fact that you are now talking about how hilariously ironic it is that I’m threadshitting in a thread about threadshitting demonstrates that you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to threadshitting, even still.
What constitutes threadshitting isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s either threadshitting or it isn’t.
Let me know when you get the mod note reversed. Until then I think it’s pretty clear who’s kidding themselves.
Which is what you think it is, right? I understand you think so. There’s probably no need to assert this any further. Doing so over and over again could be viewed as threadshitting. I don’t agree for reasons given and based on the citation given, and I’m not going change my mind based on you typing it out a few more times.
Do you understand that saying you and everyone else in the conversation agree on something when this is flat out wrong verges on delusional?
I said the majority of people in the thread agree on what threadshitting is. Their argument is that it shouldn’t apply to this case for various reasons.
No, going around and around about this forever could not ever be viewed as threadshitting, but it is getting pretty damn boring.
Wrong. Many debates have gone on nigh-endlessly in “Yes, it is,” “No, it isn’t” back-and-forth without being shut down for threadshitting. Disagreement is at the heart of debate.
Threadshitting is, “I just heard that Audi Nomus, the actor in ‘The Big Wet Sky’ passed away,” and someone responds, “Who cares? I hated that movie.”
It’s really closely related to “Being a jerk.”
You’re wrong.
No point in answering this. Thread closed. NEXT!
Come to think of it, I hated that movie too.
For someone who’s been on this messageboard for 8 years, you are beginning to worry me. You do understand that people can go back and look at what you and others wrote, right?
What you said was “I, and just about everyone in this conversation are in agreement” about the definition of threadshitting. You didn’t say “the majority of the people agree” on threadshitting, but that it “shouldn’t apply to this case”. It’s written in this thread in black and white. We can all see what you wrote. No amount of attempting to re-write your posts is going to save you. You wrote something, and now you are being untruthful about what you wrote. You need to stop now or this is going to go increasingly badly for you.
Further, even what you are now untruthfully saying you said is still wrong. Myself, Little Nemo, BigT, LSLGuy, Czarcasm, and Knorf agree with me on the definition of threadshitting (albeit that LSLGuy thinks the post in question was jerkish). Bryan Ekers appears from his one comment to be supportive of my view although he doesn’t comment on the definition of threadshitting as such. **Thudlow Boink **agreed with me about the definition although he thinks that the post in question went over into threadshitting. **Colibri **disagreed with you about what you say is and isn’t inappropriate on these boards although he didn’t comment on threadshitting as such.
Your only clear supporters are Watchwolf49, DrDeth, Trinopus and Tomndebb.
You can say this isn’t something decided by vote, but whichever way you slice it saying you have majority support was wrong, and saying just about everyone agrees with you about the definition of threadshitting was mistaken (at best) or delusional if you re-read this thread and still believe it.
On the term “threadshitting”:
Bolding added. Those last three words are kind of important, that’s why you keep leaving them out of your quote.
Not many people are ignorant enough about the meaning of an internet term that has been in use as long as widely as threadshit to dispute what it means. As far as I remember you are the only poster in this thread who has. Others have argued essentially that the only valid answers to the OP were also necessarily threadshits but I don’t agree with that either. Very few, or probably only you, have demonstrated an utter lack of knowledge about what the term actually means in the first place.
I’d remind you again though, I’m not a mod. I think the mod staff tuned you out by now because your question was answered long ago, but that’s no reason to turn your impotent appeals toward me. I simply agreed it was threadshitting. I can’t reverse the mod note and I think it was deserved.
Not surprisingly, the ones who say it isnt threadshitting are often hard core proselytizing atheists, who think its perfectly OK to ridicule the Christian faith. (You never see them ridiculing other religions, oddly)
But even if it’s not threadshitting, what use is it? When there’s a discussion over whether or not Jesus was a historical figure, posting it’s all superstitious nonsense, like the Invisible Pink Unicorn is not adding anything to a reasoned debate.
Ok, we know you are not a believer, fine. What use is posting that over and over and over and over? Do you really think your brand of sarcastic ridicule with cause the Believers to go “OMG, I have been fooled all these years! That last sarcastic comment has caused me to abandon my faith!”