Well, I honestly don’t see how it could possibly be as provocative. There is a great difference between personally respecting the concept of a god and acknowledging that other people respect the concept. Common politeness should prevent you (general you) from being intentionally extremely offensive about something that is extremely important to someone else – something that is, as Zoe put it, literally sacred to them. This does not require you to accord the idea an equal amount of respect, or indeed any respect at all; it only requires you to understand that, yes, the concept really does exist as a concept and really is that important to a lot of other people. There’s a lot of room between “Jesus is [insert most provocatively rude insult you can think of]” and “Jesus is Lord.” Refraining from the former doesn’t automatically put you in the camp of the latter, and you are not required to endorse the former in order to avoid endorsing the latter. You can be an atheist, even a vocal and passionate one, and still be minimally mindful of the feelings of others. Do you have to be? Of course not. You can be a big ol’ jerk instead. But the fact that religion is the subject under discussion doesn’t make you less of a jerk.
Why bring up that old drunk? 'Da Bahr has been dead for 25 years now and I ain’t missed him for one minute.
D & R
In other words, calling someone’s god a cunt is equivelent to calling someone’s mother a cunt.
This is a lie of tom’s. I have never admitted trolling. You should ask him for a cite before you offer your conclusion. I have always maintained that my goal is to fight ignorance.
I haven’t broken any rules. I gave tom shit, in the pit just as he suggested. The pit is the place for “ flaming other members, complaining about the board, its moderators or their moderating actions, or for unleashing reasoned vitriol too heated for the other forums.” That’s what the rules say. In fact I was exactly following the pit rules, in the pit, when Frank thought it fair to suspend me. So what’s your problem Monty. Do my criticisms just hit too close to your heart?
Probably the same reason new laws keep getting passed and enacted. There are some things that seem obvious to almost everyone, but a new rule/law is sometimes needed because enough of you misfits require it.
I have a feeling a badchad law isn’t far away. I also think it’s overdue.
That’s fine if tom wants to make up new rules, but he really should post them before he enforces them. And he really shouldn’t imply that the rule has always been in force, when it hasn’t. Or do you disagree?
Yeah, Monty. What are you, some kinda modder-lover?
Only if your mother is a god.
Just because a person doesn’t believe in any god doesn’t mean that person doesn’t know what a god is. And it’s not a historical figure or a leader or your sweet sainted mum. What the hell is so hard about this?
You can honestly look me in the username and tell me you don’t understand how this is provocative?
Now, once badchad recognized what he had said, he backpedalled like nobody’s business, claiming that he was only happy that Polycarp posted less frequently on religious topics. However, one will note that he made no such actual statement in this exchange. Polycarp noted that his entire experience on the SDMB had been diminished by badchad’s harrassment and expressed the thought that he hoped that that diminution of pleasure and his withdrawal from the (entire) SDMB was in accord with badchad’s life goals, to which badchad simply responded with a fervent affirmation.
badchad made no qualifications regarding the topics that he was happy Polycarp avoided.
Polycarp said that he avoided the SDMB because of badchad and badchad said that made him happy.
(Polycarp’s original post to which badchad was responding. Note, also, that each of them posted several times between Poly’s original statement and badchad’s eventual response. This was not a quick back and forth volley in which badchad might have posted with insufficient clarity in the haste of the moment. This was a specific effort to go back, find an earlier post, consider it, and respond.)
I stand by my assertion that badchad admitted trolling.
Huh. I thought I was agreeing with you.
Tom you are a piece of shit. In said thread Lord Ashtar cited the straight dope administrations definition of a troll. And I quote:
“Troll – This is general internet usage for “somebody who is posting just to be confrontational or to raise hackles.” See Staff Report: What is a troll?.”
You will note that nowhere in said definition does it say that a troll is someone who takes a certain pleasure in silencing his opposition, particularly when said person feels that his opposition promotes ignorance. Nowhere does it say I can’t find pleasure in what I consider as a job well done in the fight of ignorace. Does it tom?
Or in other words, you tom are a fucking liar. I don’t fit the definition of a troll as per this boards own use, and no I never admitted to be a troll. And no, I didn’t backpedal one iota from my statement.
And while I again have your attention, why don’t you cite for me the rule I allegedly broke, when I suggested you and braintree hash out your differences in a new thread. Can’t do it can ya?
Heck, even I know that “lawn chair” posts, i.e. encouraging others to go at it for the sheer entertainment value, is frowned on. I have, though, done this myself on several occasions and got away with it because I’m way more clever than you.
While I was in class teaching, tomndebb demonstrated that you had, in fact, admitted to breaking the site rules. He even quoted where you admitted that trolling, not fighting ignorance, was your goal with regard to Polycarp. You are now trolling with regard to me with your irrelevant comments in this thread about me and my faith.
Not that you’ll understand this, but the trolling you admitted to did not have tomndebb as your announced target. That target was Polycarp and the trolling wasn’t carried out in the Pit.
Actually, as you had admitted and now deny, you weren’t following the rules in the other fora and that’s why TPTB suspended you.
My problem with you is that you’re a troll. You’re also incredibly dishonest. Your trolling against me in this thread–your so-called criticism–is completely irrelevant to the single issue of tomndebb not being as you have characterized him.
You’re stupid. I never admitted to trolling Polycarp as my last post and tom’s cite demonstrates.
Tom’s cite was in the pit you dipshit.
Actually the incident that led to my suspension was never identified.
You’re a liar on all counts. You accusing me of dishonsty is rich indeed. Kind of like when you, as a Mormon, questioned my rationality.
When did I say they should go at it for “sheer entertainment value?”
Isn’t part of being let back in an admittance of having done wrong? Or if not, isn’t this proof that being suspended didn’t do anything?
Time to ban, please.
Well, I certainly didn’t assume you were interested in the ontological analysis.
Perhaps you should ask rather than assume.
Also, I want to apologize to frank for identifying him as the person who suspended it me. It was fluiddruid who did so, citing the all fitting “don’t be a jerk rule” but did not specify a single action I did that was against any listed rule.
So you were honestly interested in the subject of the proposed discussion and not simply trying to goad tomndebb into a situation where you would call him a weasel for refusing and a fool (had he accepted) for trying to defend and define something that is a matter of faith and not fact?
Don’t bother saying “yes” because I’ll just chuckle at the obvious lie.