Tomndebb you are a hypocritical pussy.

[Zoe]

pseudotriton ruber ruber: It’s not like the SD is a bastion of rational and rigorous thought or anything, is it? Not when Christianity is being threatened by the likes of badchad.

(cue opening theme to Jaws)

[duffer]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

Which goes back to my point about Tom’s incompetence: if someone pisses you off, and you have the majority of posters on your side…

Are you out of whatever fucking mind you ever started out with?!? Based on my popularity among your brethren, and tom’s less-than-prompt payment to my fanclub, your statement is about as valid as a pre-teen girl stating her parents hate her for not letting her stay out until midnight with a date. Though your argument doesn’t include the maturity level of the girl.

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

I need dumb fucks like you paraphrasing my argument like Tom needs a little more support from his mindless choir.

The most pathetic part is people have a valid beef about chadster. You’re just slavishly following him along trying to stir up shit. I have a bit of respect for him as he at least is open about it, you’re just a douchebag lackey.

He’s an asshole. You’re the asshole-hanger-on. Pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

[Miller]

Never thought I’d see a thread where I agreed completely with both duffer and Clothahump. It’s kinda creepy.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@tomndebb

You need to read more carefully. I have already pointed out that despite his troll-like behavior, I have resisted efforts by both posters and other staff members to brand him a troll.

As to my “Christian fan-club,” you might want to wander over to the (extremely long) Pitting of badchad to note the quite large number of atheists, agnostics, and unbelievers of various stripes who condemned his actions and accused him of trolling. It is hardly a “Christian” phenomenon.

It would appear that you are letting your own emotions color your remarks.

ye gods, tom, don’t encourage people to go backinto that thread! I STARTED it and I’m tired of it.

[Richard_Parker]

If it’s not too late in the thread, can I trouble you **badchad **to explain the difference in meaning between “I think you are covetous” and “You are covetous.”

[crowmanyclouds]

@rayh

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

…Tom needs a little more support from his mindless choir.

Promotion at last. My doper cred just went up a few million points.

Ooo, can I be a stupid prick, taking a belligerent stance, in tomndebb’s mindless choir?

I could use the extra Doper Cred Points too! (I’ve almost got enough for the pony !)

CMC fnord!

[AHunter3]

[QUOTE=badchad]
Tomndebb you are a hypocritical pussy./QUOTE]
Anyone else notice that the chadster, when he wants to denigrate someone, tends to refer to them as a girlly bit?

Vaginas and vulvas must be even worse than theistic folks, alleged god-incarnations, and board moderators…

[joyfool]

[QUOTE=AHunter3]

@badchad

Tomndebb you are a hypocritical pussy./QUOTE]
Anyone else notice that the chadster, when he wants to denigrate someone, tends to refer to them as a girlly bit?

Vaginas and vulvas must be even worse than theistic folks, alleged god-incarnations, and board moderators…

Bolding mine.

That said, I must offer a snerk to that observation.

~thus saith another of the mindless choir

[GusNSpot]

I think this has gone on long enough that even if it is lacking, it should be added to Tom’s ‘jackboot’ count. Fair’s fair …

Oh, and thanks to all about where to find that thread info. I learn something every day.

[Princhester]

@tomndebb

You pretend that I do not challenge Bible man’s beliefs because he and I believe in a Christian God, yet I have also never challenged Der Trihs, Kalhoun, Princhester, Revenant Threshold, or other posters on this board regarding their belief (or lack) in a divinity.

tomndebb, old son, your use of me as a poster boy for non jerkish atheism is beginning to worry me. Do it once more and I’m going to engage in asshole obnoxious atheism every single day until you stop

[ambushed]

@Monty

Pssst, What Exit? Check post #6.

Pssst, Monty, Check post #5.

[Polycarp]

@crowmanyclouds

Ooo, can I be a stupid prick, taking a belligerent stance, in tomndebb’s mindless choir?

I could use the extra Doper Cred Points too! (I’ve almost got enough for the pony !)

CMC fnord!

Absolutely not!!

We all know what you would do if you were given permission to behave as above.

You’d get that durn pony, and then you’d teach it two or more tricks, you sneaky person, you! :mad:

[Monty]

@ambushed

Pssst, Monty, Check post #5.

Psst. :smack:

I got nothing. :o

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Clothahump

I’m quite certain I’ve stepped on Tom’s toes more than once with my viewpoints, but he has never jackbooted me for that.

That’s kind of my point. Tom’s a pretty decent, fair, even-handed Mod, except on the subject of intellligent and tenacious arguments about his system of belief. Then he goes nuts, applying (or inventing) all sorts of new definitions of “troll” and “bannable offenses” on Badchad ** and claiming that’s being reasonable because he didn’t apply such definitions to Badchad**'s opponents.

Look, this is the SD. The main attraction around here, for me, that people have to defend their claims, and have to defend their extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence. If they refuse, people make merciless fun of them, and rightly so. That’s pretty much what badchad’s doing, except he’s defining a belief in the Christian God and Bible as an extraordinary claim, which for some bizarre reason it is not considered around here. This is the largest hole (the only hole that I can find, actually) in the SDMB’s philosophy of rational thinking, and Tom appointed himself sheriff in charge of running all the atheists out of town on a vague charge of “rudeness” and “mopery.” I’m just trying to point out, while you’re heating up the pitch and gathering the feathers, that it’s actually the sheriff who’s violating the town laws.

[Contrapuntal]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

Look, this is the SD. The main attraction around here, for me, that people have to defend their claims, and have to defend their extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence. If they refuse, people make merciless fun of them, and rightly so.

Unless I misunderstand the rules, it is not OK to make “merciless fun” of people in GD. And criticisng “weaklings and losers” is poor form in any supposedly polite social discourse, in my opinion.

[rayh]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

That’s kind of my point. Tom’s a pretty decent, fair, even-handed Mod, except on the subject of intellligent and tenacious arguments about his system of belief. Then he goes nuts, applying (or inventing) all sorts of new definitions of “troll” and “bannable offenses” on Badchad ** and claiming that’s being reasonable because he didn’t apply such definitions to Badchad**'s opponents.

Look, this is the SD. The main attraction around here, for me, that people have to defend their claims, and have to defend their extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence. If they refuse, people make merciless fun of them, and rightly so. That’s pretty much what badchad’s doing, except he’s defining a belief in the Christian God and Bible as an extraordinary claim, which for some bizarre reason it is not considered around here. This is the largest hole (the only hole that I can find, actually) in the SDMB’s philosophy of rational thinking, and Tom appointed himself sheriff in charge of running all the atheists out of town on a vague charge of “rudeness” and “mopery.” I’m just trying to point out, while you’re heating up the pitch and gathering the feathers, that it’s actually the sheriff who’s violating the town laws.

You really haven’t read what people are saying have you?

I will try again. People dislike badchad not for what he says, but for the way he says it. Their are plenty of atheists who have said he is an asshole. Probably more atheists than Christians at this point. You are the only one defending his behaviour.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Contrapuntal

Unless I misunderstand the rules, it is not OK to make “merciless fun” of people in GD. And criticisng “weaklings and losers” is poor form in any supposedly polite social discourse, in my opinion.

Are you defending weaklings and losers on general principles here? Because we could open up a whole new GD about that, if you like.

And it certainly is OK to make merciless fun of people’s points in GD. You’re supposed to illustrate the weakness in someone’s logic, or debating style, or facts in debate, and you’re not obliged to follow some prissy defensive officious fool’s made-up definition of “rude” just because he’s trying to stifle you, when your opponents are permitted–nay, encouraged–to be much ruder. Give is give and take is take, and if Tom were half as condemnatory of ALL species of rudeness in GDs on religion and atheism, we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place.

[Contrapuntal]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

Are you defending weaklings and losers on general principles here? Because we could open up a whole new GD about that, if you like.

I tried to be civil, I really did, but I must ask, what are ya, stupid? Did you see a defense mounted in there anywhere? What I said is that it is poor from to pick on ‘weaklings’ and ‘losers’, a philosophical position backed up by thousands of years of human thought. And FWIW, if I were to encounter someone picking on a weakling or a loser IRL, hell yeah I would defend them. “The strong shall not injure the weak” and such.

And it certainly is OK to make merciless fun of people’s points in GD…

What are ya, stupid. Can you not even read your own words? Let me quote them for you, with emphasis –

Look, this is the SD. The main attraction around here, for me, that people have to defend their claims, and have to defend their extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence. If **they **refuse, people make merciless fun of them, and rightly so.

Being an English perfesser and all, you know about antecedents and all, right?

[Lord_Ashtar]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

That’s kind of my point. Tom’s a pretty decent, fair, even-handed Mod, except on the subject of intellligent and tenacious arguments about his system of belief. Then he goes nuts, applying (or inventing) all sorts of new definitions of “troll” and “bannable offenses” on Badchad ** and claiming that’s being reasonable because he didn’t apply such definitions to Badchad**'s opponents.

Can you show any examples of Tom “inventing new defintions of ‘troll’ and ‘banable offenses’” for anyone attacking Christianity other than badchad?

[John_Corrado]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

Are you defending weaklings and losers on general principles here? Because we could open up a whole new GD about that, if you like.

Isn’t being an English professor kind of the apothesis of being a weakling and a loser? I mean, geez, if I piss you off, what are you going to do? Quote Joyce at me?