If nothing else good happens from this ugly mess, I must say my respect for Mtgman has increased tremendously. Bravo.
I asked to get one of 2 responses. One being his best analysis of the situation, which I am confident I can effectively counter. The second response being silence, indicative that for all his claims to the contrary, Monty knows my response did not fit the SDMB’s definition of a troll.
And for your information, just because I know I’m right, does not mean I won’t listen to others responses.
More of the very definition of a troll. Asking leading questions so you can make your (spurious) point.
yawn I don’t know why I even joined this ridiculous thread. I wish you many continued hours of posting, jerk. Later.
badchad, I’d like to ask you a serious question. I’ve never participated in any of the pile-ons against you and I don’t want you to think that I’m doing so now. This is not meant as an insult. I’m genuinely curious.
Is English your first language?
Please cite where this is the definition of a troll.
Yes.
Are you interested in other fora here besides Great Debates and The BBQ Pit? In other words, if religious talk were not allowed here, would you stick around? If the answer is no I’m wondering if maybe you would be happier at a religious-themed board. There are hundreds of them on the web.
Hey, don’t be moving the goalposts on top of your other lapses of credibility.
Hoisted by your own petard, I’m afraid. You should have read the Staff Report you referenced:
The main point about trolls is that they intentionally mislead others. As the Free Online Dictionary of Computing (http://foldoc.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?troll) notes, “Trolling aims to elicit an emotional reaction from those with a hair-trigger on the reply key. A really subtle troll makes some people lose their minds.”
That’s why you say such things as “Jesus is a cunt”. You do it to elicit an emotional reaction. You want people to lose their cool. It is also why you stalk one individual. If your goal were to eradicate ignorance, you would engage me, whom you believe to be even more ignorant than Poly. The only reason you’re griping about Tom is that he interferes in the pursuit of your prey. You have one and only one purpose here, which you have stated and demonstrated repeatedly: to bait Poly so that he won’t enjoy himself here. You were not proud of eradicating any ignorance. After all, what you do is perpetuate ignorance. You were proud of hurting his feelings and ruining this experience for him.
You. Are. A. Troll.
I think that’s for you to decide as an individual. Zoe stopped using the word “fundie” out of simple respect for my wishes." I stopped using the word “cunt” out of respect for hers. If a person wishes to call my mother names, I can’t stop him. If he wishes to call my God — whom I love more than my mother — names, I can’t stop him from that either.
But one thing is clear: if he knows for a certainty that it hurts, then his intention is to hurt. Deciding when that should apply is part of the art of civility. If a person is using his God to hurt others, then he opens himself up to seeing his God insulted. Same as if a White Separatist uses his cherished race to hurt others. To me, it is a defensive statement when a person is responding to harmful intentions. That is different from an offensive statement, intending to injure a person you simply don’t like. To me, anyway.
Coming out of that is a work in progress for me. Thanks for your patience. 
Yeah, he’s pretty damn smart for a Moorcock fan.
My post is my cite. You are a troll.
Please show me where I suggested he should be banned for calling Jesus a cunt.
TLDR.
Regards,
Shodan
No, you ARE a daily dipshit.
In the post I quoted in the first place, you said:
Sorry if I took the next step of your statement as being a request for his banning. Usually accusations of “assholish trollery and jerkish behavior” = a call for banning. YMMV
Jodi, I have a problem with this, I care far more about Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln or my Mom than any God. Why is someone’s belief in a God more important than my adoration for Teddy Roosevelt. Does it come down to only those worshiped deserve protection?
I do not think anyone should be calling God, Jesus, Moses, Krishna, FSM, Mohamed, or even whatever Deity it is that Scientologists believe in a derogatory word for female anatomy. It is stupid and immature and can do nothing but provoke. However, I was not aware that provocative statements alone were reasons for calling someone a troll and asking for their banning.
I have no clue what your last sentence even means? What was your point? 
Jim {Damn it, I am not going to be painted into a corner as an apologist for BC, I think he should be banned, just not for the derogatory name calling of Jesus. That could be part of it, but a lesser part IMHO.}
Speak for yourself. While I agree with your points, I’m not sure where they apply here. As a rule, you’ll get the troll who will post some ludicrous post. Most (not all) posters will try to engage the troll as though the troll is actually debating. Eventually, it becomes clear that the troll is ignoring any points made that disprove its argument and is only interested in turning the debate into a brouhaha by continually interjecting inflammatory responses.
Some posters, as seen by the length of these threads, keep trying to debate logically with the troll, even when it is evident that logic is wasted on it. Others will abandon the cause as futile, recognize that according attention to the troll is making it rub its warty hands in glee, and hive off. There may be a few posters who ‘play to the peanut gallery’, but my guess is not many.
My favourite of all responses to trolls, which was SOP at another board, was ‘neener, neener’. The great thing was that the majority of members concurred and so the troll would not be engaged, only met with a chorus of ‘neener, neener’. They left soon enough 
You’re a smart guy badchad. You’ve spent considerable effort trying to stay just this side of line in making your case and drawing attention to it. And, as I’d read it, you’d probably just be OK if you didn’t so obviously know what you’re doing.
But, as you no doubt know, the line here is deliberately fuzzy. It’s fuzzy to encourage posters to stay a safe distance away from it most of the time and to discourage posters from regularly trying to stay just a single hair’s breadth from going outside the level of civility required on these Boards.
Like I said, you’re a smart guy and you know this.
To all, especially What Exit? and Jodi, debating whether someone ought to be banned for calling Jesus a cunt, my two cents. I believe that badchad’s original use of this word to refer to Jesus was intended to inflame the emotions of some posters and readers. I believe that it was a phrase carefully chosen for its desired emotional, not rhetorical, effect. I believe that his first use of the phrase was trolling. That his subsequent use of the phrase was trolling seems indisputable. To me, there is a difference between episodes of trolling behavior and habitual trolling. I don’t think that anyone’s mother, favorite politician, or beloved deity should be protected on this message board. In my opinion, badchad is a habitual troll, in the sense that he starts threads and makes posts in the most provocative terms his somewhat stunted brain can conjure up, doing this on a regular basis. I think he’s a total jerk for targeting Polycarp and tomndebb. I believe that he is deliberately dancing as close to the fuzzy lines we have here as he can, just for fun. Trolling does not appear to be an automatic banning offense here. Being a jerk is deliberately vaguely defined.
I guess I could have typed a lot less had I simply said that I believe that badchad should be banned not for calling Jesus a cunt, but for what I view as his obvious motivation for calling Jesus a cunt: he wanted to provoke strong, unpleasant emotional responses from some posters, which I believe is his primary motivation for posting here.