As interesting as your reply is, critical reading skills would show that you didn’t actually respond to my question. Thank you for the attempt though.
Wait? Are we all reading the same thread?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Serious question. tomndebb are you currently taking prescription medication?
Try looking at the many, many times **FinnAgain **has “creatively” called people liars in the threads in **GD **about Israel. **tomndebb **will never warn him unless his “opponents” get too carried away, and then he just shuts the whole thing down. It’s remarkable what he lets him get away with.
It’s sad really, because it means that we will never see an honest and fair debate on Israel (which I for one would love to see) here on the Dope. Instead they all get hijacked and turned into nasty frothing at the mouth “no u” bullshit which TPTB cannot or will not control.
> TWEET!! < :::MODERATOR BLOWS WHISTLE TO INTERVENE :::
PLEASE, FOLKS: I’m not sure why this is in ATMB, since it seems to be a debate about the Gospel of John (including such semantic side-issues as the differences between religious vs ethnic Jews, between anti-Judaic and anti-semitic, etc.) I think it was started here because the OP Fenris was complaining about a moderator decision, here: because (I think) the OP is aimed at criticizing a moderator’s decision here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11299681#post11299681
The issue becomes clouded because (IMHO) some of tomndebb’s comments in this post are moderating; e.g.:
On the other hand, other comments in that thread seem to me to be his opinion as a poster; e.g.:
And on the third hand, there are comments in that post can be seen as ambiguous as to whether a moderating decision or a poster’s opinions; e.g.,
This last one seems to me to be a mixture; the comment about “not in accord with the majority of scholarship” is pretty clearly the opinion (however factual) of a poster, while “Once the point has been made…” is clearly a moderating decision about what is and what is not a hijack. OK, it looks like the mods need to have some back-room discussions about mixing poster-comments with mod-comments.
Hvaing said that, I am also not exactly sure what Fenris’s complaint is, exactly. tomndebb’s comments that she quoted in the OP all seem to be about the topic of the thread (i.e., his comments as a poster) rather than about his moderating decision to call a topic " hijack." This kind of ambiguity is perhaps inevitable: how does one defend that something is not a hijack, without discussing the topic.
So, FIRST, I’m blowing a LOUD WHISTLE to get this thread on topic. This thread is about whether tomndebb’s moderating decision (calling a topic a hijack and asking that it stop) was reasonable. This thread is NOT about who wrote the Gospel of John, whether one can be Jewish and still be anti-Judaic, definitions of Jewishness, etc. PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC HENCEFORTH.
Now, SECOND: there is a distinction, and it’s often a fine one, between insulting the poster and challenging what the poster said. There are cases that are clear cut, and there are situations that are in that grey fuzzy area.
ACCEPTABLE: Your statement is untrue.
ACCEPTABLE: Your opinion is not endorsed by most scholars.
ACCEPTABLE: What you said is ludicrous.
NOT ACCEPTABLE: You are a liar.
I agree that it’s a fine line, I agree that some cases are ambiguous (one toe over a line), but the line is there. tomndebb is very sensitive to this distinction, as are other who can “creatively” say that someone is making untrue statements without actually calling them a liar. The distinction may be legalese, but it’s there and it’s the way we try to keep discussions civil.
Yes, and always has been… as long as the sarcasm and smarminess doesn’t cross the line into being personal insult.
Hello!. Is this how we treat new members around here now?
At any rate, the point of the OP seems to be he took offense about a variation on the usual statement of “The early Christians were Jews”. He equates it to someone dropping a random insulting comment about Native Americans or any other group. Without a cite, I think it is fair to say that if anyone ever drops something along the lines of “yes, but she is a woman” or “what did you expect from a nigger” or “that’s the problem with muslims” the thread is always derailed and turns into a pile on on the offending post and poster.
The claim that early Christians were Jews is really not that far from any other slam against any of those other groups. Saying that is at best ignorant, if not disingenuous or flat out provocative. While it might be true that they were Jews in an ethnic sense, in the case is Jews ethnicity and religion is tight enough that the confusion is inevitable and it is the responsibility of the poster making the distinction.
It is not different from saying “blacks” when you mean “poor inner city African Americans on welfare that I saw on Jerry Springer”. The distinction is important and by not making them you are extending an assumption over a group of people that is insulting to those outside the narrower group.
I do agree with the OP that had this happened with some other group the derail would have been expected and likely to be left unmoderated. Which is not to say that he wasn’t waiting for it to happen to settle a personal issue. I have no idea of that nor care for it.
Thanks Sapo. That’s pretty much exactly what I was trying to say.
While I make no pretense at liking Lib, if I was going to settle a grudge, I’d have done so in the Pit. Outside of my interaction with Liberal in his “Welcome Back” pit threads, I’ve stayed away. So the “In fact, every post you’ve made to, toward, or about me has dripped with hostility since my return. One is given to wonder whether all this is, at its root, the expression of some grudge.” theory looks to me to be just more delusional paranoia like Lib’s other regular accusations of being stalked and plotted against (anyone else remember the EddyTeddyFreddy debacle?).
Believe me, if I was interested in pitting Lib, I’d simply pit him. I’ve never been shy about pitting someone when I wanted to, and the dismissal of my complaints about the nature of the comments I objected to as “simply looking for a fight” to be problematic and not congruent with the fact.
Fenris, if I said Jesus was a Jew, would I be lying ?
Was Jesus anti-semitic ?
Was Paul/Saul a Jew? Was he anti-semitic?
Fenris is a she?
The EddyTeddyFreddy thread, for those interested in seeing previous examples of how he accuses people of secretly plotting against him. (There are others that I can’t get the search engine to cough up)
Note: this is in reference to Tom’s agreement with Lib’s accusation that the only reason I could possibly be upset with Lib’s comments is that I’m holding a grudge. Seems that Lib regularly accuses people of harboring secret hatred for him, so I believe it’s on topic.
Nope. 
I assume it was just a typo by Dex.
AFAICT, the basic problem is the notion that saying “you can be a religious Jew if you believe in Jesus” is anti-Semitic or anti-Judaic or something like that.
Which strikes me as rather silly, and the counter-point that all the apostles and much of the early church were religious Jews seems perfectly legitimate.
Defining the terms of the debate conveys a huge advantage, which is behind much of the pro-life/anti-choice/pro-abortion/etc. stuff. Same here. Which seems to be the problem with the “hijack” - refusing to accept that “religious Jews can believe in Jesus” is anti-Judaic (whatever) interferes with the attempt to win the debate by definition.
Believing that Jesus is God = not a Jew. Believing that there is no God = Jew. Seems rather odd. I understand the historic basis for the assertion, but don’t sympathize with it.
There seems to have been an attempt on the part of some posters and of tomndebb to force the debate to go in a chosen direction by forbidding (essentially) the use of certain arguments. I doubt that is going to work. Certainly the mods can (and should) enforce the rule against calling people liars. But “all the rabbis asy you can’t be a Jew and believe in Jesus” is an argument from authority. If I refuse to recognize that authority, then the argument has little or no weight. Nobody cares what the fundies/God-botherers/ hand-stabbers/Christ-killers/whatever say about it.
Regards,
Shodan
My apologies for the gender goof, Fenris. It wasn’t a typo, it was just a mental hiccough. I shouldn’t make long posts early in the day without coffee.
Now: HARRRUMMMPH! (Yes, I know that all caps is yelling: I am harrummmphing very LOUD for ATTENTION since the whistle wasn’t completely effective.)
Didn’t I say (with Moderator Hat On) that discussions about the substantive issues (whether Jesus was a Jew or whether Paul was anti-semitic) are NOT suitable for this thread or this forum? This forum is about a moderator action’s in asserting a topic to be a hijack. You want to start threads on religious/historic issues, go to Great Debates or General Questions or the Game Room. Not here.
On preview, I see Dex’s post. Never mind - I think it is off-topic for this thread, insofar as I know what that topic might be.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s my point in part. I don’t get how it’s a hijack to discuss a point that the OP brought up and that is being continued (2 posts by someone else, one response by Liberal) even after I was told to not post there any more.
Given that, I assume I’m clear to post there Tom? Since Liberal has continued the discussion even after your rule, is this new special-for-me-only rule still in effect? Or can others post on the so-called hijack and not me?
And as an aside, here’s another example of Lib trying to define what a Jew is/believes and when the Jew disagrees, is dismissed as "so intent on disagreeing with me that you are manufacturing paraphrases and calling them my own words.. Sound familiar? I guess you can’t argue with Liberal unless you’re just looking for a fight. So I find Tom’s dismissal of my complaint as just spoiling for a fight to be incorrect.
Tom ends the post with [ /Moderating ]
This implies they entire post is authoritative and official SDMB policy.
To be fair, tomndebb didn’t tell you not to post at all, only not to repeat an argument that he didn’t want repeated.
I only read the first page, but I didn’t see anything of the sort in anything Liberal posted there. I did see several angry atheists insisting that they did not worship God in any way, shape, or form, and Lib agreeing, but that is their misinterpretation, not his.
I am getting a fairly strong ‘suicide by mod’ vibe here. I hope I am wrong, but if not, good luck to you.
Regards,
Shodan
Which is like saying "Yeah, you can participate in an AGW debate, but only if you’re on one side and ignore slurs by the OP.
Read Finnagain’s posts a few pages in-they pretty clearly express the same feeling.
Regarding “Suicide by Mod”, I certainly hope not. I’ve been here nine years or so and never been warned, mod-noted or, I hope, caused any trouble for the mods. I’m hoping that Tom’s rash decision will be reversed. That said, if I get banned, I feel strongly enough about this issue that it’s a hill I’m willing to die on, so to speak.
You must think very little of the mods if you think this will lead to Fenris’ banning.
Not all of them.
Regards,
Shodan