# Tomndebb: clarification please? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 23, 2006, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-please/373884 "2006-09-23T21:28:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2006, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-please/373884/41 "2006-09-24T03:36:51Z")
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber] [QUOTE=kunilou] But let the subject turn to religion - specifically Christianity - and you’re right there calling on the mods to rule the whole thing out of order./QUOTE] That’s a modest enough request, isn’t it? “To rule the whole thing out of order” --no big deal there. Or maybe you’re exaggerating? [/QUOTE] Or maybe I’m not exaggerating. What topics, other than ones dealing with belief in God or organized religion, have you complained about? Take a look [at this thread you started](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=386299). It’s a good topic for discussion. I participated in it myself. Whenever the discussion started to bog down, you were right back in there, willing to rephrase the question, define your terms. When someone pointed out an alternative, you seemed happy to entertain it, even if you didn’t accept it. Even though the entire topic is **completely unable to be proven**. Even though it requires trying to apply what we know now to what happened back then. Now take a look at [this thread you started.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=386245) Where’s the intellectual curiosity? Where’s your eagerness to have a discussion about the very thread you started? Where’s the respectful querying of other Dopers? Nope. **You started** a thread about God – just so you could sum up your rant with > [@](#): > > allow us to get on with our fucking lives without another syllable about conversion, God, the Bible, or other related matters. You’re smart. You can construct a good argument when you have a mind to. You aren’t just a one-note poster. But face it. On this topic you are completely off the deep end. And when others don’t want to play your game, it pisses you off like nothing else in the world. ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_Stream](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@Carol\_Stream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_Stream)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2006, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-please/373884/42 "2006-09-24T03:37:10Z")
[QUOTE=Caridwen] I’m going to be totally honest with you **Carol Steam** , I don’t think anyone wants to get involved in a conversation that your a part of. I’m not trying to be nasty, and it has nothing to do with agreeing/disagreeing with you. It’s your posting style of half sentence, snarky digs. [/QUOTE] I’m truely sorry you feel that way. What can I do to improve my “posting style”? I am willing to learn, if nothing else. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2006, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-please/373884/43 "2006-09-24T04:01:57Z")
[QUOTE=kunilou] when others don’t want to play your game, it pisses you off like nothing else in the world. [/QUOTE] Hardly. I’m enjoying myself here, engaging with my fellow Dopers in discussion. If you think I’m all pissed off (and **Friar Ted** and his sidekick **Askeptic** is the model of affability), you’re misreading me (and way misreading them). As to the two threads you cite, the first one was clearly a hypothetical, in which we were reconstructing events contrary to what actually happened. Though you praise me (thanks!) for being willing to return to that thread several times, and specifically for being “willing to rephrase the question, define your terms. When someone pointed out an alternative, you seemed happy to entertain it, even if you didn’t accept it,” please notice that **Lord Ashtar** jumps all over my ass in the second thread because I agreed cheerfully to inserting the word “Christian” (a bit redundantly, I thought) to clarify what I meant by “God.” (Actually, I meant “Judeo-Christian God,” but whatever.) How does the willingness to amend my OP serve as a irritant in the second thread and as a charming quality in the first? Could it be that you’re predisposed to dislike my OP in the second thread? You don’t appreciate hearing an atheistic point of view–I get that. But there’s lots of stuff you don’t appreciate, I’m sure. Why get so worked up over me asking some questions? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2006, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-please/373884/44 "2006-09-24T04:04:17Z")
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber] Who said it had been invented out of thin air? Jesus could well have existed, and many of the stories in the Bible could have some real basis in fact. But ALL of the extraordinary claims could well have been invented, and I believe they probably were. [/QUOTE] Certainly they could. But I think you would be willing to stipulate that if they _did_ happen precisely as the Bible says they did, there couldn’t be any possible “cite” because there’s no sort of evidence that would survive a 2000 year period. I’m more than happy to say (this is also in response to your snarky response above) “I could never get a cite for this.” If you’d recognize this is a situation where no material evidence would ever survive a 2000 year period, thus your asking for a cite is a bit disingenuous. I’m not making the claim it is fact, I’m saying it is what I believe. There’s no way I can ever demonstrate that it is fact, simply because the evidence isn’t of the type that would survive millenia (I mean, am I expected to bring in the blind man from the well as an eye witness? Yeah, I think he may be deceased.) I don’t expect you to accept something as fact that happened so long ago evidence cannot exist. But I also hope you don’t expect me, in this situation to accept _the absence of evidence as the evidence of absence_ because it truly is not. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2006, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-please/373884/45 "2006-09-24T04:12:30Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] Certainly they could. But I think you would be willing to stipulate that if they _did_ happen precisely as the Bible says they did, there couldn’t be any possible “cite” because there’s no sort of evidence that would survive a 2000 year period. I’m more than happy to say (this is also in response to your snarky response above) “I could never get a cite for this.” If you’d recognize this is a situation where no material evidence would ever survive a 2000 year period, thus your asking for a cite is a bit disingenuous. I’m not making the claim it is fact, I’m saying it is what I believe. There’s no way I can ever demonstrate that it is fact, simply because the evidence isn’t of the type that would survive millenia (I mean, am I expected to bring in the blind man from the well as an eye witness? Yeah, I think he may be deceased.) I don’t expect you to accept something as fact that happened so long ago evidence cannot exist. But I also hope you don’t expect me, in this situation to accept _the absence of evidence as the evidence of absence_ because it truly is not. [/QUOTE] Plenty of stuff that happened 2000 years ago was well documented, **Martin** , and more is supported by scholarship over the past 2000 years. It’s unfortunate that none of the contemporary history supports your beliefs, and I extend you my comiseration but, sadly, cannot take your word that it really happened the way you think it did. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2006, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-please/373884/46 "2006-09-24T04:14:00Z")
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber] Yeah, that’s what I claim too when I don’t have a cite. It doesn’t go over as well as I’d hoped it would. [/QUOTE] I’ll repost the entirety of the passage of mine you were quoting, because you seem to have taken it somewhat out of context: > [@](#): > > If someone were to respond, “I do not know factually that God exists, but I know God exists” that also in my opinion would not be making a factual proclamation but rather a profession of personal belief, which is not something this message board really has any business asking for a cite for, since such a cite seems a bit ludicrous in application. Do you feel that the religious should have to offer up a cite to prove to you what they _believe_ I’m not talking about proving **the existence of God** I’m talking about _asking someone to prove that they **believe** in God."_ How would one prove what they **believe**? I think them saying they believe it is about the best you can get. Based on them saying that you can take their word that yes, they really do believe it. Or you can say, “You give off the vibe that you’re lying, you really don’t believe that.” Either way I think it’s a bit ludicrous to argue with someone over what they believe, because they’re the only ones who really know whether they believe it or not. And no, I didn’t say it because (as you’re implying) I don’t have a cite to back up a factual assertion of mine, and thus I decry asking for a cite as ludicrous. I’m saying asking for a cite is ludicrous when _I’ve already said I’m not making a factual claim._ It’d be like asking someone for a cite if they said, “I really feel today was a good day.” ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2006, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-please/373884/47 "2006-09-24T04:28:17Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] I’ll repost the entirety of the passage of mine you were quoting, because you seem to have taken it somewhat out of context: Do you feel that the religious should have to offer up a cite to prove to you what they _believe_ I’m not talking about proving **the existence of God** I’m talking about _asking someone to prove that they **believe** in God."_ How would one prove what they **believe**? I think them saying they believe it is about the best you can get. Based on them saying that you can take their word that yes, they really do believe it. Or you can say, “You give off the vibe that you’re lying, you really don’t believe that.” Either way I think it’s a bit ludicrous to argue with someone over what they believe, because they’re the only ones who really know whether they believe it or not. And no, I didn’t say it because (as you’re implying) I don’t have a cite to back up a factual assertion of mine, and thus I decry asking for a cite as ludicrous. I’m saying asking for a cite is ludicrous when _I’ve already said I’m not making a factual claim._ It’d be like asking someone for a cite if they said, “I really feel today was a good day.” [/QUOTE] I would think that people who want to assert their belief in God could simply say “I believe in God,” I might say “I’m sure you do.” (If I’m feeling frisky, I might add “Could you tell me why you do?”, if that’s okay with you.) They’re certainly not required to back up a subjective belief. But telling me that they KNOW God exists raises some issues for me, which I think I’ve been pretty clear on. Why is this semantic point so important to them? As a Red Sox fan, I might assert that I know the Red Sox will win the World Series next season, but if you challenge me that I can’t know that (though I feel it sincerely and truly in my bones), I’ll back off cheerfully and admit that okay, maybe I don’t know it but I believe it powerfully enough to overstate it. Why does labelling your belief a belief threaten you so profoundly? ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2006, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-please/373884/48 "2006-09-24T04:32:20Z")
Hey **pseudotriton ruber ruber** , I am basically on your side that belief in God is as hokey as belief in anything supernatural and does not measure up to critical review or logic, but I do not believe \*\*tomndebb \*\* is unfair in his handling of the Religious Debates. **badchad** did appear to cross the line. Keep in mine I have defended both him a little and \*\*Der Trihs \*\* a lot. I just think you might be applying your own prejudices against religious belief to **tomndebb’s** modding. I have always found him fair and reasonable. We do not have to understand faith, or have any, to show some courtesy to those that do. It would be better if we remained as civil as possible in GD. This is the pit and \*\*Guin \*\* is being ruder than almost anybody, so have at it here, but \*\*Polycarp \*\* always remains polite and should probably be answered in kind. Jim ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2006, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-please/373884/49 "2006-09-24T04:42:48Z")
[QUOTE=What Exit?] I just think you might be applying your own prejudices against religious belief to **tomndebb’s** modding. I have always found him fair and reasonable. [/QUOTE] I’ve found **Tom** to be a reasonable mod over the five years I’ve been here, so I can see how you’d find my complaint unkind to him. But I’m hardly complaining that **Tom** or the SDMB mods in general are off base, just pointing out that they overlook certain excesses of pro-theism posts (like \*\*Friar Ted \*\* and **Askeptic** ) , while being a little quick on the trigger with posters like **badchad**. You’re free to disagree, of course, but that’s my rather limited complaint. I thought mentioning the Red Sox winning the World Series might draw you into this thread. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2006, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-please/373884/50 "2006-09-24T04:48:26Z")
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber] certain excesses of pro-theism posts (like \*\*Friar Ted \*\* and **Askeptic** ) [/QUOTE] Can you point to a thread in **GD** where either has gotten a pass for personal attacks? The one much referenced remark by the **Friar** occurred in the **Pit**. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2006, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-please/373884/51 "2006-09-24T04:50:03Z")
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber] The sheer slack cut for Christians in particular and theists in general for disregarding the need for exceptional evidence for their admittedly exceptional claims is one of the few lacunae (if not the only one) in the SDMB’s handling of its posters, and is the only tendancy of this place I heartily disapprove of. [/QUOTE] I think this reflects a misunderstanding of what it is moderators moderate around here. As a general rule we don’t moderate the quality of people’s arguments, but only the tone and civility of the discussion (and a few other things, like not copying and pasting an entire copyrighted work into the middle of Great Debates). You can make exceptional claims with no evidence to back you up, commit every logical fallacy in the book, and post the most wretchedly framed, illogical, screwed-up arguments in favor of your position imaginable, and you won’t be warned for it by Tom or by me as a moderator (although _as posters_ we might have quite a bit to say on whatever the subject is). (One slightly oddball technicality is that we do expect people to debate in good faith–no "trolling’'–which leads to the sometimes weird position that if someone _truly believes_ something batshit insane–that the Moon landings were faked by the Illuminati because all the Jews who supposedly died in the Holocaust really moved up to Luna City in 1946–he’s not breaking the rules, but if he’s posting this crap just to fuck with everyone, then he’s out of here.) Basically, if you think theists are getting a pass on the need to back up their claims with logic or evidence, it’s _your_ job to call them on it. Just don’t call them names (in Great Debates), or it’s our job to tell you to cut that out. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2006, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-please/373884/52 "2006-09-24T04:59:55Z")
[QUOTE=MEBuckner] Basically, if you think theists are getting a pass on the need to back up their claims with logic or evidence, it’s _your_ job to call them on it. Just don’t call them names (in Great Debates), or it’s our job to tell you to cut that out. [/QUOTE] The problem comes when someone demands real evidence and we get told, “Yah, you’re not even an atheist you’re a mudsucking troll and you’ll burn in hellfire besides hahahahaha and I’ll roast marshmallows with the Lord Jesus by my side laughing hahahahha,” to which I might respond, “Oh, go to hell yourself,” and get a plague of locusts and Mod Warnings visited upon my house. Doesn’t quite seem even handed to me, but then what do I know? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2006, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-please/373884/53 "2006-09-24T05:03:04Z")
> [@](#): > > “Yah, you’re not even an atheist you’re a mudsucking troll and you’ll burn in hellfire besides hahahahaha and I’ll roast marshmallows with the Lord Jesus by my side laughing hahahahha,” If somebody says anything like that to you in Great Debates, you should report the post, not tell 'em to go to hell themselves. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2006, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-please/373884/54 "2006-09-24T05:03:48Z")
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber] I’ve found **Tom** to be a reasonable mod over the five years I’ve been here, so I can see how you’d find my complaint unkind to him. But I’m hardly complaining that **Tom** or the SDMB mods in general are off base, just pointing out that they overlook certain excesses of pro-theism posts (like \*\*Friar Ted \*\* and **Askeptic** ) , while being a little quick on the trigger with posters like **badchad**. You’re free to disagree, of course, but that’s my rather limited complaint. I thought mentioning the Red Sox winning the World Series might draw you into this thread. [/QUOTE] Strangely enough, I did not see the Red Sox part until after I posted. **badchad** has been of heightened interest lately. I think **Tom** was actually right in the warning this time. It is all about the tone of the post. If you see Friar going over the line, start reporting him. Check the time stamp, I could not compose that post in the time that past from yours. 🙂 As far as the Red Sox, well of course I hope not, but I will not attempt to predict next year, that would be silly. I’ll go out on a big limb, the Yanks and/or the Sox will be in the post season next year. Jim ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2006, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-please/373884/55 "2006-09-24T05:15:19Z")
[QUOTE=MEBuckner] If somebody says anything like that to you in Great Debates, you should report the post, not tell 'em to go to hell themselves. [/QUOTE] Yes, I understand that. My point is that Tom just seems a tad quick on the Mod Warning trigger when he’s dealing with posters whose argument offends him and he’s seems to me very patient and forebearing with the excesses of those whose arguments support his position. If I felt that you or he were considering my complaint, I’d be very happy to shut up at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2006, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-please/373884/56 "2006-09-24T05:19:14Z")
[QUOTE=What Exit?] We do not have to understand faith, or have any, to show some courtesy to those that do. It would be better if we remained as civil as possible in GD. This is the pit and \*\*Guin \*\* is being ruder than almost anybody, so have at it here, but \*\*Polycarp \*\* always remains polite and should probably be answered in kind. Jim [/QUOTE] Well hey, this is the Pit. I never claimed to be polite ALL THE TIME. I try to be in GD, but here, well, you know what they say about heat and kitchens. ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2006, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-please/373884/57 "2006-09-24T07:18:13Z")
I agree with **prr** when he said: > [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#): > > I would think that people who want to assert their belief in God could simply say “I believe in God,” I might say “I’m sure you do.” (If I’m feeling frisky, I might add “Could you tell me why you do?”, if that’s okay with you.) They’re certainly not required to back up a subjective belief. But telling me that they KNOW God exists raises some issues for me, which I think I’ve been pretty clear on. [QUOTE=Sarahfeena] All I can say to that is that I think you are reading me wrong. The knowledge comes from inside me, so I am sharing it as much as I can by telling you about it. I really don’t have any way of letting you see inside my soul, so you can see what resides there, so this is the best I can do. [/QUOTE] I do see that point you’re trying to make, and I don’t think I’m reading you wrong. However, your use of the term “knowledge” is incorrect. This might seem like a semantic nitpick, but it really isn’t. [Knowledge](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge) is a specific term that has criteria that needs to be met: > [@](#): > > The definition of knowledge is a live debate for philosophers. The classical definition, found in Plato[1], has it that in order for there to be knowledge at least three criteria must be fulfilled; that in order to count as knowledge, a statement must be justified, true, and believed. So to “know” something, it must be: 1. Justified - you have _evidence_) that it is true. 2. Believed - you believe something is true. 3. True - it actually _is_ true. In terms of religious belief/belief in the existence of god, you meet the first criteria (belief), but fail to meet the second and the third is unknowable (esp. without evidence). ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2006, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-please/373884/58 "2006-09-24T07:32:51Z")
[QUOTE=Waenara] 1. Justified - you have _evidence_ that it is true. 2. Believed - you believe something is true. 3. True - it actually _is_ true. In terms of religious belief/belief in the existence of god, you meet the first criteria (belief), but fail to meet the second and the third is unknowable (esp. without evidence). [/QUOTE] Should have previewed again after editing! Of course, I meant to say: In terms of religious belief/belief in god, you meet the **second** criteria (belief), but fail to meet the first and the third is unknowable. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2006, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-please/373884/59 "2006-09-24T10:21:10Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Can you point to a thread in **GD** where either has gotten a pass for personal attacks? The one much referenced remark by the **Friar** occurred in the **Pit**. [/QUOTE] To be fair, didn’t I do it in GD after badchad’s “Christ-c\*\*\*” comment? ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2006, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-please/373884/60 "2006-09-24T10:26:15Z")
[QUOTE=FriarTed] To be fair, didn’t I do it in GD after badchad’s “Christ-c\*\*\*” comment? [/QUOTE] And I never named anyone- just talked about how I’d enjoy seeing certain God-haters comes to that embarrassing but ultimately happy confrontation. I must ask pseudo-r-r- in his ref to “badchad, a moment…, p. 17”, do you mean THIS? If by this, you regard askeptic as an ally of mine- learn to read, Dude! [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7805254&postcount=839](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7805254&postcount=839) FriarTed Charter Member Join Date: Nov 1999 Posts: 4,853 Location: SE Indiana USA Quote: Originally Posted by askeptic Yeah, then you can sit around with that same smug self righteous look wishing to see atheists piss themselves when jesus comes to kick ass. Fuck that and fuck them. Not atheists, just hateful trolls. But hopefully concluding with their tearful reconciliation to the God/Christ they foolishly despised. And bless you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-please/373884.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-please/373884.md?page=4)