Oh, C'MON, MsRobyn

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimera

You don't walk into a church in the middle of a sermon and spit on the cross, you don't walk up to a priest or rabbi and verbally assault them while they're drinking coffee at Starbucks, or you get arrested for trespassing and disturbing the peace, if not for assault. What that has to do with anything is to recognize that there is a time and a place for expressing one's hostility to their beliefs, and there are limits in a civil society on how you can express such things.

---

What I do is no different than them showing up at a council meeting like their opinion matters.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimera

Frankly, in my opinion, holding such forceful hostility to religion or belief - to the point where you feel that you can express it any time and any place and are within your rights to engage further anger if someone asks you to stop - is a sign of a serious character defect and a lot of anger management issues that need to be dealt with.

---

Quite frankly I think adults whose imaginary friends are evil, vindictive, genocidal, hateful and vengeful are the ones with the character flaw. I think it's a sign of a mental defect to not constantly question the validity of religion. I think the people who don't ask why we bother to have news stories about old farts in dresses getting promoted are flawed. I want to know why Chris Hansen isn't beating down the doors of the Vatican City on his quest to rid the world of pedophiles.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Julie

Your avatar picture is your actual brain, isn't it? Ask them to put it back in.

---

This from an adult who has an imaginary friend?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimera

What isn't being seen is that allowing that path is a defacto censorship of any and all religious belief, because expressing it subjects any thread to derailment down that path.

---

People will still have the right to say stupid things. They just have to learn to live with having those things called stupid.

No more free pass.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimera

But again, we are talking about a basic right to holding Civil Discourse on such matters.

---

I was in no way uncivil.

Disagreement, even when it is critical and harsh, is not uncivil.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimera

Having the "right" to jump into any conversation involving beliefs different from your own and derail them is not condusive to Civil Discourse, or to the rights of other people to freely discuss such matters.

---

I wasn't aware that it was posted in Huggy Huggy No Disagreement Land.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimera

but of unreasoning anger toward religion.

---

My dislike of religion is based entirely upon reason.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CRSP

[modhat:3rcirhcj]hatesfreedom, you seem determined to get banned. You've already been approached by a mod in PM. This is now a formal warning. Do not troll the boards.[/modhat:3rcirhcj]

---

I don't see what the problem is.

The reasons for your dislike may be entirely based in reason.

Where the reason ends is in your beliefs that you have the right to trample other people's rights because you disagree with THEIR beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CRSP

[modhat:ytgc8wwv]hatesfreedom, you seem determined to get banned. You've already been approached by a mod in PM. This is now a formal warning. Do not troll the boards.[/modhat:ytgc8wwv]

---

I'm sorry CRSP but its over. I"m with Ninetywt now.

You said you loved me...

:cry:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

I don't see what the problem is.

---

Have you read all of the huggable little critter's posts? Some of them could be construed as trolling. Maybe more like AWing.

Crispy, you can have it back. Apparently it's not housebroken. :?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

My dislike of religion is based entirely upon reason.

---

That's fine, but it's not always the topic of conversation. "Nice weather we've been having lately, huh?" "Sure is, no thanks to JESUS, because he's IMAGINARY!"

What people are complaining about is that -- while your posts in that thread were largely on topic, since there's plenty of room to question Agnesë Bojaxhiu's saintliness -- you slid into general criticism of the Church, and the legitimacy of the Church naming people as saints. It's not only off-topic, but it's the sort of off-topic posting that riles people up -- which is not a problem in and of itself, but that means it tends to displace any other discussion that's going on. Everyone else would like to be able to have a discussion about stuff pertaining to the RCC without it immediately turning into an argument about whether the RCC is in itself an evil organization of puppy-killing oppressors.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NinetyWt

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

I don't see what the problem is.

---

Have you read all of the huggable little critter's posts? Some of them could be construed as trolling. Maybe more like AWing.

Crispy, you can have it back. Apparently it's not housebroken. :?

---

Yes, I have read all of his posts, and I don't see where he's trolling, at all. Or, if you want to call it trolling, then he's trolling, but he's funny, and it's not like he's ruining the Dome for everybody else. I mean, basically, it appears the problem is he's not taking this place seriously enough. I don't personally have a problem with that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Julie

Your avatar picture is your actual brain, isn't it? Ask them to put it back in.

---

This from an adult who has an imaginary friend?

---

I do? How intriguing.

Is it you?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimera

Where the reason ends is in your beliefs that you have the right to trample other people's rights because you disagree with THEIR beliefs.

---

How, exactly, am I supposed to be trampling on their rights?

Disagreeing, even vocally, is not 'trampling on their rights'.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

That's fine, but it's not always the topic of conversation. "Nice weather we've been having lately, huh?" "Sure is, no thanks to JESUS, because he's IMAGINARY!"

---

Not even in the same ballpark as criticizing whether someone is worthy of adulation using her own words against her.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Everyone else would like to be able to have a discussion about stuff pertaining to the RCC without it immediately turning into an argument about whether the RCC is in itself an evil organization of puppy-killing oppressors.

---

And I don't have the ability to stop them. I think it's a perfectly valid criticism of canonizing saints to say that not only is this individual a poor choice for these reasons, but that the idea of saints in general is a bad idea. 'No one' is a perfectly valid answer to the question of who should be made a saint, especially if it is backed by logic.

Maybe it's not what Julie wants to hear, but sometimes you have to accept that you won't like all the answers when you ask the question.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

Maybe it's not what Julie wants to hear, but sometimes you have to accept that you won't like all the answers when you ask the question.

---

Uh, I, like a lot of the other people in that thread, am not religious. So for us it's not a matter of "not liking the answer" so much as "the answer didn't even pertain to the question, so let's get back to that".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Yes, I have read all of his posts, and I don't see where he's trolling, at all. Or, if you want to call it trolling, then he's trolling, but he's funny, and it's not like he's ruining the Dome for everybody else.

---

Right, which is why I said "could be" construed as being trolling. Perhaps Crispy has had further conversation through the back-channel - I didn't mean to be answering for him.

I think its a good idea to be critical of another persons religion in order to knock it down or cast doubt on it. I mean we all know that religious people are totally dumb and that they shouldn't take something like the foundation for their existence as personal as they do. I mean I know from my long torrid internet forums affair with NinetyWt that the key to your soul mates heart is blistering and insensitive cristism of a system neither party can prove.

I think NinetyWt leaving me was for different reasons than debating what happens after death, but I had to because I KNEW I WAS RIGHT.

blah. i'm done. lets all go to the bar afterwork.

How much beer does it take to get a ferret drunk, anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NinetyWt

How much beer does it take to get a ferret drunk, anyway?

---

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/936...0gekelru6y.jpg

always thinking of you

That's the oddest looking ferret I ever saw!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

How, exactly, am I supposed to be trampling on their rights?

Disagreeing, even vocally, is not 'trampling on their rights'.

---

There comes a certain time when you realize that the other person's "logic" is faulty and that reason isn't going to make a dent. At that point you can only step back and allow them their folly. I've reached that point with you now. I can only suggest that you consider that same idea going forward with your incessent anger toward spiritual beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

My dislike of religion is based entirely upon reason.

---

Well, let's be having it then. What are your premises? What are your inferences? What is your conclusion? Frankly, it sounds like your hatred of religion is based entirely upon ignorance and hysteria.

It's pretty clear that you are in reality Der Trihs. It's the same writing style. The same unsubstantiated claims. The same grammatical errors. The same irrational hostility. The same sociopathy. The same threadshitting tactics that you deployed at SDMB.

It's a pity that you came. This board is the worse for your being here. You contribute nothing while sucking out its life. You are a delusional idiot who has yet to make a good argument for your cause. You are the thinking atheist's worse nightmare.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimera

There comes a certain time when you realize that the other person's "logic" is faulty and that reason isn't going to make a dent. At that point you can only step back and allow them their folly.... I can only suggest that you consider that same idea going forward...toward spiritual beliefs.

---

Funny, that's about the only place to even start in regards to religion, and yet when people do, y'all get up in arms and try to jump down their throats about it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Liberal

It's pretty clear that you are in reality Der Trihs. It's the same writing style. The same unsubstantiated claims. The same grammatical errors. The same irrational hostility. The same sociopathy. The same threadshitting tactics that you deployed at SDMB.

---

No she's not. Also, "sociopathy"? Is it that you don't want anyone to take you seriously?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Is it that you don't want anyone to take you seriously?

---

You are clearly delusional, imagining yourself to be the only person who communicates with me, ignoring the fact that nearly every communication I have, other than with you, takes me seriously. Is it really and truly the case that you never ever agree with a single thing I ever say? Have I missed an "I agree with Liberal" post somewhere? Because if you never agree with me, then you disagree with a lot of people, because I've had a lot of "I agree with Liberal" posts from other people. Other people. Those bipedal things out there that bear a vague taxonomic resemblance to yourself.

You may now post another dumbass non sequitur. How about one of your famous wows?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Liberal

You are clearly delusional, imagining yourself to be the only person who communicates with me, ignoring the fact that nearly every communication I have, other than with you, takes me seriously.

---

The question is why you'd be so desperate that you'd WANT to communicate with anyone who took statements like this one and your last one seriously. :) Really, first "sociopathy" and now "delusional"?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Liberal

You may now post another dumbass non sequitur. How about one of your famous wows?

---

"Vows"? What are you making reference to? Are you confusing me with someone else?

I have been so worried about the Thunderdome in the past couple of weeks. I thought we would be stuck with mini-rants and bitchings about ice tea. But this shit is glorious. Now, finally, it feels like home.

I want every single mother fucker in this thread to know I love them just a little. Especially the goddamn ferret.


P.S. Lib, that ain't Der Trihs. It's catsix.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrnalene

P.S. Lib, that ain't Der Trihs. It's catsix.

---

They're functionally identical. It's a metaphysical match.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

"Vows"? What are you making reference to? Are you confusing me with someone else?

---

And you can't read. I tried to make peace with you, and you obviously prefer that there be enmity. I'm afraid that, at this point, the only way you and I can work things out is if you have some bacon on your ass.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Liberal

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

"Vows"? What are you making reference to? Are you confusing me with someone else?

---

And you can't read. I tried to make peace with you, and you obviously prefer that there be enmity. I'm afraid that, at this point, the only way you and I can work things out is if you have some bacon on your ass.

---

You didn't try to make peace with me. If you had tried to make peace with me, you would have, you know, been peaceful towards me. Instead, however, you've been shrieking hysterically at me ever since I signed up. Just like you did to catsix up there. Honestly, if you want "peace" with people, you should try to fake some human decency, rather than giving in to hysterical rage all the time. I have a feeling you're extremely funny to watch in person. :D

At any rate, this still doesn't explain what "vows" was a reference to. Trying to deflect with your typical puerile insults ("And you can't read") doesn't actually turn your non sequitur statement into something that makes sense.

Psst -- Exy -- it was Wows. With a "w".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NinetyWt

Psst -- Exy -- it was Wows. With a "w".

---

Oh. Shit.

Okay, so it was just stupid, not a non sequitur. Fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

You didn't try to make peace with me. If you had tried to make peace with me, you would have, you know, been peaceful towards me. Instead, however, you've been shrieking hysterically at me ever since I signed up. Just like you did to catsix up there.

---

That simply isn't true. My first encounter with you on this board was in the second Hate Speech thread. You came in out of the blue and posted this:

Quote:

---

Oh, look. Liberal is throwing a big drama fit and derailing a thread. I AM SHOCKED WHO IS WITH ME ON THIS

---

Is that an example of trying to "fake some human decency" that you're recommending for me?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Liberal

Quote:

---

Oh, look. Liberal is throwing a big drama fit and derailing a thread. I AM SHOCKED WHO IS WITH ME ON THIS

---

Is that an example of trying to "fake some human decency" that you're recommending for me?

---

Looks like another joke.

You can open your own thread, you know. They're free!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Julie

Looks like another joke.

You can open your own thread, you know. They're free!

---

:lol: Oh, very good, yes indeed! Our own thread! Free! :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacandra

Either way, it's hardly a new one, so I don't know why mozg feels she has to be a dick about it.

---

That you've been wrong for a long time is no excuse to continue being wrong.

---

That you've been a dick for the last few weeks is no excuse to continue being a dick. But if you're so down on people talking about what Rome says, I trust you'll leap all over every other synecdoche with equal rigour - you know, when the news cast says something about the latest pronouncement from Washington or Downing Street, because cities and streets can't talk.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Liberal

Quote:

---

Oh, look. Liberal is throwing a big drama fit and derailing a thread. I AM SHOCKED WHO IS WITH ME ON THIS

---

Is that an example of trying to "fake some human decency" that you're recommending for me?

---

That's the kind of gentle ribbing that normal people can tolerate. Cuz, after all, it's not like it's the first time you blew some tiny thing way out of proportion, is it? That'd be like me going into a frenzy because someone mocked my extravagantly long messages, or my rapier wit and movie-star looks. Bottom line, I'm not used to having to deal with people who are as hypersensitive to any perceived criticism as you are.

Besides, I'm not the one who was bitching at you for not "making peace", remember? I mean, given the sort of hysterical, spittle-flecked rage you had directed at me two hours prior, it was obviously not a genuine offer anyway, so why are you complaining at me for not taking you up on it?

It's sorta ironic that you're basically arguing that you are under no obligation to treat others any better than you are treated in a thread where you came because you're outraged that someone isn't being sufficiently respectful of your Christian faith. Is that how you always go through life? You won't try to treat others well unless you've formed some sort of agreement with them in advance to that effect? Jeesh. At least I get to leave this experience with the knowledge that I treated you better than you treated me. After all, I didn't go into other, unrelated threads, with no provocation, to post things like this. Or randomly and totally without cause follow you from thread to thread trying to restart the drama like this. At least every time I insulted you, it was because of something you actually did! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hostile Dialect

It seems to me that mozg is plenty interested in discussing how and why certain people are canonized, and you, OP, just don't want to hear from people who disagree with you. Put on your big girl panties and get over it. Or post a rejoinder in the thread. Or ignore it completely.

To turn this around, if I were to start a thread asking, "What should be the criteria for a same-sex marriage?", and somebody came in and said, "I'm curious as to how they figure this out, but for what it's worth, I think gay mariage has no place in society", I'd like to think I wouldn't run crying to the mods about it. It's just an opinion. Everyone has them.

---

I think you've got it all wrong. This is the equivalent of you starting a thread about 'what should be the criteria for same sex marriage', and some strident Christian coming in and saying 'Gays have no place in society'. It might be something to discuss (and from what I know of you, HD, it might be an amusing conversation to watch you blast them a new hole)), but it's not the right place for it. By allowing someone to step in and begin that argument, it sets up the danger that every homosexual-related thread is going to be you blasting this Christian a new one.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

I think that a thread that's a question on whether or not X person meets the qualifications of Z should be a conversation on X, not on Z. That's all.

---

So you want people to be banned from debating Z? That's not fair; any question of X will call Z into question, too. If there was evidence that the World Series was rigged, discussion of that very problem would be quite relevant to a thread about predicting the winner of the World Series.

---

Not at all. I just don't think any thread that's an offshoot of Z to be a debate on Z itself. It stops us from having an indepth discussion on Z, because everything turns into that first stage "Is Z bullshit?"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacandra

Either way, it's hardly a new one, so I don't know why mozg feels she has to be a dick about it.

---

That you've been wrong for a long time is no excuse to continue being wrong.

---

You're a dumbass.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Idle Thoughts

You're a dumbass.

---

Actually, she's pretty clearly quite intelligent.

From personal experience and observation of others, I have long concluded that being intelligent and being a dumbass are not mutually exclusive.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hostile Dialect

Right. Some of this board's particularly whiny members think their religion should be protected from criticism by force. And that's just silly. It's something nobody else asks for, but we're supposed to give them special leeway because they have Faith.

---

This isn't my point at all. To make my point a little more specific to you, I wouldn't want a thread that you started about gender-confusion in 21st century college students in developing nations to get bogged down by some jackass coming in and saying "Gender and physical sexual expression is the same thing!" loudly. Sure, that's a debate in it's own right. It's tangentially related to the theoretical OP. But if it happens, it would prevent an in-depth discussion of changing gender standards amongst a given group, because the thread would break down into the founding argument, as opposed to the dedicated subset.

Good moderation should allow for detailed analysis of an issue without relying it being incumbent on those people interested in having that detailed analysis to defend it in every thread related to it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacandra

Either way, it's hardly a new one, so I don't know why mozg feels she has to be a dick about it.

---

That you've been wrong for a long time is no excuse to continue being wrong.

---

Do you really think that conflating 'Rome' with 'the Roman Catholic Church's hierarchical structure' to be somehow unclear? Or damaging?

Eh, forget I asked. You're a close-minded bigot. It's impossible to debate these things with someone like you

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hatesfreedom

Guys lets derail the fuck out of this thread.

Does anybody know a good boardgame for me to try? I was looking at Agricola, Puerto Rico, or maybe Cathedral. We've played RISK and Trivial Pursuit and now we need something new. Not all of them are hard core about boardgames, most of them are pretty casual about it. Recommendations if you please.

---

Puerto Rico is an awesome game, but might be a big step from Risk and Trivial Pursuit for your gaming group.Try out Settler of Cataan as a bridge point. And check out Arkham Horror, too.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

That's the kind of gentle ribbing that normal people can tolerate.

---

You're not normal then? I don't see you tolerating any ribbing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

Good moderation should allow for detailed analysis of an issue without relying it being incumbent on those people interested in having that detailed analysis to defend it in every thread related to it.

---

Your arguments are amazingly clear and on point. I think you're tossing a lot of pearls to a couple of swine, but that's your business. I just wanted you to know that there are people who greatly admire your posts.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Liberal

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

That's the kind of gentle ribbing that normal people can tolerate.

---

You're not normal then? I don't see you tolerating any ribbing.

---

Well, yeah, I understand that your bizarre, disproportionate hatred of me has confused your perceptions. You even went into hysterics about me making an (obvious) joke in reference to EddyTeddyFreddy, and frankly someone who had their wits about them couldn't possibly have missed it. All it was was a reference to the title of the thread it was in. So I'm not surprised if you were confused in other threads too.

Speaking of which, out of curiosity, why the leap to defend ETF? I like her a lot, so I remember how, back during the period at The Other Place when you used to mention my name in outrage in virtually every post you wrote, hers was always right next to mine. Just purely out of curiosity, why did you abandon your irrational, slavering hatred of her but not of me?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Speaking of which, out of curiosity, why the leap to defend ETF? I like her a lot, so I remember how, back during the period at The Other Place when you used to mention my name in outrage in virtually every post you wrote, hers was always right next to mine. Just purely out of curiosity, why did you abandon your irrational, slavering hatred of her but not of me?

---

I think you've just encapsulated your predicament. You came at me upon your arrival with guns ablazing because you had been away for a long long time and didn't know that many of us who were former enemies had become friends. It happened with Red Fury. It happened with PRR. It happened with EddyTeddyFreddy. As he said to me here:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by EddyTeddyFreddy

Well said, my friend -- my friend because, thanks to another member of this community, we were able to patch up a rift that seemed unbridgeable. And now we truly are friends, and neighbors in our new home town.

Well said.

---

And I feel the same way. I defended him because I thought you were attacking him. I didn't know it was a joke until someone pointed that out.

I believe you came here and, owing to your understandable ignorance, decided to pick what you thought would be the low hanging fruit. You jumped on me because you thought it would be easy and popular. But as you can see, there is no great mass of people joining you.

My drama days are over. If you care to bury the hatchet, I'm willing. I do not interpret what you're doing as "gentle ribbing". If that's what it really is, then you really should be much lighter about it. Maybe agree with me once in a while instead of 100% confrontation and disagreement.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hatesfreedom

Guys lets derail the fuck out of this thread.

Does anybody know a good boardgame for me to try? I was looking at Agricola, Puerto Rico, or maybe Cathedral. We've played RISK and Trivial Pursuit and now we need something new. Not all of them are hard core about boardgames, most of them are pretty casual about it. Recommendations if you please.

---

Puerto Rico is an awesome game, but might be a big step from Risk and Trivial Pursuit for your gaming group.Try out Settler of Cataan as a bridge point. And check out Arkham Horror, too.

---

I just lately came across "Thurn & Taxis" which is all about the founding of the 17th-century German Post Office or something very like it. On the strength of one play-through, I'd rate it worth a try at least.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Liberal

I think you've just encapsulated your predicament. You came at me upon your arrival with guns ablazing because you had been away for a long long time and didn't know that many of us who were former enemies had become friends. It happened with Red Fury. It happened with PRR. It happened with EddyTeddyFreddy.

---

So, it was me who made you post what you did? It's my fault? Is that really how you want to go through life?

Quote:

---

And I feel the same way. I defended him because I thought you were attacking him. I didn't know it was a joke until someone pointed that out.

---

Her.

Quote:

---

I believe you came here and, owing to your understandable ignorance, decided to pick what you thought would be the low hanging fruit. You jumped on me because you thought it would be easy and popular. But as you can see, there is no great mass of people joining you.

---

Oh, Liberal. It's really . . . revealing . . . that you would construe things this way, isn't it? That's kind of how you operate, huh? I sorta figured you didn't get much human contact in real life. That's why you're always so anxious to form these silly little alliances, and why so many of your posts are over-the-top desperate ass-kissing -- obviously it's hard for you to imagine anyone going through life motivated by something other than an all-consuming desperation for approval, so of course you assume that's my motivation too.

Quote:

---

My drama days are over.

---

Why do you say things like that when you came into this thread doing the exact same thing you've always done?

Quote:

---

If you care to bury the hatchet, I'm willing. I do not interpret what you're doing as "gentle ribbing". If that's what it really is, then you really should be much lighter about it.

---

No one else has the trouble as you do.

Quote:

---

Maybe agree with me once in a while instead of 100% confrontation and disagreement.

---

Yes, you do clearly have a very difficult time tolerating anyone disagreeing with you, I have noticed that before.

Does anyone else think sometimes it'd be a nice thing to be able to place Poster A on ignore for Poster B and vice versa?

There are times when it seems that no one will back away and say, ok, this isn't my intent.

[Mod Note]

[modhat:q76e116b]Liberal and Excalibre: Please cease this hijack and open up a new thread if you wish to continue giving each other metaphorical wedgies. Thanks.[/modhat:q76e116b]

As a poster, I have to say this isn't making either of you look good. Immaturity doesn't age well.

They're already in the 'Dome. Is it really a hijack for them to be snarling at one another?

A hijack of the thread, yes.