Sort of. What’s your point? About antecedents, I mean. Your other points, I’ve kind of given up on understanding.
I don’t have to. The fact that he’s inventing new definitions just for badchad is sufficient for my argument. “Oh, I don’t have a way to cope with this here argument. Uh, I don’t know what to do–maybe I can make up shit, and some of will stick? Gotta try that, I don’t have anything else, and I’ll get all these dumb shits lining up in support of me no matter what I say, as long as it’s all against badchad.”
I don’t know. Try pissing me off and we’ll see.
When did he make up new definitions for badchad? Because as far as I can see, badchad has a been a one trick pony ever since he came here.
If you think acting like a total asshole is a legitimate debating strategy, well, I can’t help ya there.
Also, what do broken limbs have to do with being an English professor? Maybe you should consult with Tom on “the use of fancy language you hve no business using other than to impress people a little dumber than yourself.” That’s one of his areas of expertise.
P.S. You mean ‘apotheosis,’ but that’s not quite right, either. Keep trying, maybe you’ll land a glove on me.
I have problems with defining ‘one-trick pony’ like that. He’s interested in the entirety of the Bible, New and Old Testaments, and in the doctrines of Christian belief and of theism in general. And he’s pretty well read and a skillful analyst of texts. It’s true that’s more narrow than some of our ranges of interests here, but Tom’s carrying on like badchad’s focusing on one verse of Matthew and returning to it whatever anyone else points out anything about the Bible or Christian belief. That wouod be a one-trick pony, but badchad’s been willing to go wherever anyone wants to take him, and pretty successfully at that.
In my experience on message boards, ‘one-trick pony’ gets trotted out whenever someone feels thoroughly squelched in debate and is frustrated beyond description. “Oh, yeah, well you suck because you’re only interested in this single subject, whereas I have interests ranging from gloves to square dancing to masturbation techniques, making me a finer human being than you, ha ha ha.” I’m completely unimpressed by charges of ‘one-trick pony,’ which is otherwise called “expertise” and is otherwise admired around here.
Apotheosis: “the divine example”, according to m-w.com, though I expect you’d burst into flames at the thought of having anything with “divine” in the definition apply to you.
What was it you just said? Wasn’t it something about people having to defend their arguments?
You claimed that this is common behavior for Tom. If you can’t show that this is a pattern of behavior, then one must conclude that he is evenhanded. If that’s the case, then badchad deserves every accusation of trolling that he gets.
No, a “one trick pony” is defined around here as someone who only posts about the same damned subject, not just one small aspect of it. And he doesn’t just discuss religion, he constantly is on the attack, just looking for some small point to pounce on and nitpick to death.
He’s rude, annoying, and immature.
And those are his good points.
HA! You are imbued with such humanist civility that you could not behave as an asshole in three tries, quoting from a list of posts by our most abusive posters.
However, I will attempt to make my points without dragging your name into the mess.
Sorry Tom, I don’t think this thread gets to add to your jackboots count. The problem is that virtually everyone is on your side. There needs to be more people saying what an unmitigated ass you are and calling for you to resign at once etc etc et al for it to count.
And in the spirit of being no help at all, you are totally right about BC. 
Bullshit.
YOU’RE defining it in that way because it suits your flimsy argument just here.
Darwin’s Finch, to pick an example of a pretty well-respected poster around here, almost exclusively posts on natural science, at least as I’ve ever seen. NO ONE says his limitations in subject matter makes him a one-trick pony. One-trick ponies are fine, as long as their one-trick doesn’t piss you off and their single-minded arguing skills don’t foreclose every other means of arguing back.
You’d say that Darwin’s Finch isn’t a one-trick pony because he, or Colibri, who also sticks mainly to natural science posts, discuss a wide variety of particular subjects within their area of expertise–which is exactly what I’d say about badchad–he’ll discuss Old Testament, New testament, Apocrypha, church doctrine, fundamentalist practices, various interpretations of religious texts, eschatology–you name it, but conveniently enough, this seems to you to be a very narrow range of interests. You know what? If this is all you’ve got against badchad’s postings, you got shit.
Oh…BadChad knows how to google!
Badchad isn’t a bible expert, by any means. Haven’t you seen Diogenes slap him around in these threads?
This isn’t about Christians vs atheists. This is about assholes vs normal people.
You and badchad are on the side of the assholes. The rest of us are on the side of the normal people. See how that works?
And Badchad isn’t a one-trick pony because he likes to debate religion. He’s a one trick pony because all he wants to do is ATTACK religion and insult the religious.
Oh! look! A quote-mine. Not only was Guinastasia’s post truncated so as to subtly change the meaning and make it easier to dismiss, but a full stop(period) was actually added, making it look like that’s all she wrote.
Shocking.
Damn my coding; tried to do nested quotes by hand and accidentally included the ‘bullshit’ in Guin’s quote. I guess this could be used to try to negate my point, except that what I did was an accident.
Yeah, isn’t that actually against the rules? 
(Not that I really care, but since we’re discussing badchad and all, it might be appropriate to nitpick)
Honestly, pseudotriton ruber ruber and badchad are so blinded by their pathetic martyrdom complex they fail to see the proverbial forest for the trees. If they think being an annoying, obsessive, rude jackass is a decent way to convince people to listen, well, good luck. Cuz they’re gonna need it.
While you’re shocking yourself, look up “adding full stops to quoted matter”–it’s perfectly standard. No malice there, unless you’re intent on inventing some.
Truncation isn’t, although in this case the truncation appears to be part of Yet Another Straw Man. Deliberately altering the substance of a quoted post is against the rules, but I’m sure that what has been done here is too subtle to be able to call.
I’ll concede that the full stop may not have been malicious, although it was interesting, because their addition has been recognised as a common aspect of creationist quote-mining.
However, I stand by my assertion that the truncation of Guin’s post (then answering the truncated and thus weakened version as if it were the whole), is a strawman.