Oh, C'MON, MsRobyn

This isn't going to be all that vitriolic, so if you enjoy cagefights you'll have to start something yourself.



In this thread, I'm trying to have a conversation about canonization.

mozg comes along with such lines as this:

Quote:

---

I won't throw out science and pander to Catholic sensibilities. They can call whoever they want to a saint, and they will. And I am free to call them all disgusting, greedy, hateful scum.

---

Boozahol Squid, P.I. replies:

Quote:

---

If you want to call Catholics disgusting, greedy scum, then why the hell are you posting in a thread about canonization? I mean, other than blatant trollery?

You know, you can have an intellectual conversation about something you disagree with, even if it requires accepting (for the purposes of discussion) ideas that are anethma to you. If someone is discussing whom the Republicans are going to nominate for President in 2008, could you really not add anything other than 'They're all a bunch of assholes'?

---

Then you reply:

Quote:

---

That said, mozg has the same right to post in this thread as you do, whether she's Catholic or not. She's not threadshitting, she's simply voicing her view on the subject, however strongly.

---

C'mon. What she was doing was absolutely 100% prime grade-A threadshitting. She's not interested in Catholic sensibilities but she's in a thread about canonization for Bo's sake. What in the flying fuck is more Catholic than that?

When I asked her what she thought the thread would be about, she answered (this was after your reply, so I'm not saying this should have been part of your judgment):

Quote:

---

I figured we'd be talking about a bunch of immoral people playing it up like they have the high ground because of their connection to a shared imaginary friend.

---

Now, I don't know if we should have a rule against threadshitting, but what she's doing is absolutely threadshitting.

Yeah, that's a prime example of threadshitting alright.

I'm interested in what kind of bullshit the power structure in the Vatican holds up to be a prime example of moral, ethical, godly behavior. That I'm interested in it because I find it to be more ammunition for the idea that religion has long outlived its place in the world does not indicate a lack of interest.

I'm interested in it from the perspective that making saints out of people who are corrupt, greedy, hateful and unethical demonstrates that the organization who chooses to honor these people with these qualities is demonstrating its own corruption. I'm interested in it from the perspective that if people like Mother Teresa were doing what is called 'God's work', what does that say about the god that these people worship?

What does it say about the people who worship a god whose work is done by a woman who thinks children are better off being warehoused in orphanages than raised by people who used birth control, while telling poor people who live in squalid conditions barely able to feed themselves let alone become educated, raise their standard of living, and control the size of their family to one that they can afford to care for that they will burn in hell forever if they use condoms.

Because to me, the idea that this woman is potentially a saint, says a hell of a lot about the kind of people who would revere her.

If that was all she came into the thread to post I would agree with you Julie, but it looks like she mainly came in to challenge Mother Theresa as a Saint and backed up why she thought so. It appeared to be Boozahol Squid, P.I. who moved the thread to an abortion debate.

She was not actually shitting on the idea of Saints but objecting to the:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

A discussion of canonization requires that you bring with it Catholic sensibilities in regards to matters such as abortion. Terminating a pregnancy is killing a child.

---

The thread clearly got hijacked but more by Boozahol Squid, P.I. than mozg

This is all just in my opinion as a poster. I don't mod The Crucible.

So there's this thread going on in The Crucible. It's a thread supposedly about canonization of Catholic saints. This topic is rather broad, and there are plenty of avenues that can be discussed and debated. However, one poster decided to step in, and instead of approaching the topic in good faith, decided to take the opportunity to attack, first, one aspect of Catholic belief, and then, later the Church (and its worshippers) itself.

Now I understand that amongst our group of posters, the RCC isn't the most popular of institutions. I would imagine that the overwhelming majority of posters here are pro-abortion, pro-contraception, and generally wary of institutionalized religion. There is plenty of room, in both the Crucible, or in the Thunderdome, for people ot make those arguments. However, I really feel that if that avenue is taken every time some aspect of the Church is brought up, posters are allowed to hijack a thread to assault it, we'd lose out on the benefits of honest open discussion. There's a reason to discuss even those things which we all agree aren't true (e.g.: Was the rage of Achilles in the Illiad justified?) without someone stepping in to declaim the foundations of the discussion itself (Achilles is a fictional character! Homer was a collective group of poets!)

I should admit, at this point, that I'm a Catholic. I get irritated quickly when people dismiss the fundamental ideas of the sacredness of life as espoused by the Church as a misogynistic ploy to control all women, or that there is no morality in religion, only deception and vice. I responded quickly,and harshly, to the poster in question. After a few moments, I also reported his post, as I felt that not only did he deserve to be called out on trolling the thread (and by that, I mean that he wasn't honest in responding to any part of the discussion so far, but was trying to introduce totally irrelevant thoughts on the nature of the Catholic Church), but that also, it would do good to have an official word on somewhat respecting the nature of an OP.

And I get this response:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MsRobyn

I realize that this is a rather heated topic, and people on different sides have strong opinions on it.* That said, mozg has the same right to post in this thread as you do, whether she's Catholic or not.** She's not threadshitting, she's simply voicing her view on the subject, however strongly. *** Which means you're not junior modding.**** You are, however, accusing someone publicly of trolling and engaging in ad hominem attacks, neither of which are acceptable. ***** If you have an issue with her, take her to Thunderdome. That's what it's for. ******

---

My asterisks added, for ease of response, point by point.

* Canonization of Saints isn't a heated topic. That's what the thread began as, and that's what it continued as until mozg came in and responded to the thread as if it was "Catholic Church: Threat or Menace?" There's a place to discuss the canonization of saints, and it seems reasonable that The Crucible be one of them. However, you can't have a real discussion about that issue unless you allow for the fact that discussion of the internal matters of the Catholic Church require at least a hint of understanding that the RCC operates on its own rules. What would you say if a Q&A thread opened up on a question of tax law, and a Libertarian started railing against the idea of taxes in their own right? No matter the right or wrong of their opinion, it's not the right place to weigh in on it.

** I don't have a problem with non-Catholics weighing in on the issue. In fact, I welcome the response of someone like Claptree: he made his opinion known, but understood the fact that they didn't want to involve himself in the discussion at hand. If Claptree had wanted to spend the time to discuss how MT wasn't a good candidate for sainthood based on her inappropriateness for the qualifications involved, it would have been even better. However, those qualifications, inevitably, get wrapped up in Catholic dogma. So he left, without trying to change the nature of the thread itself.

*** What is threadshitting, then, other than an attempt to wrangle a topic completely off-base, and attack the bases of the posters that are probably most interested in the topic?

**** Thanks. This would be about the only point that I might agree with you on.

***** There isn't actually a rule against calling someone a troll on this board. I thought ex post facto lawswere one of the things we were trying to get away from on the SDMB. I also didn't engage in any ad hominem attacks. The closest of which, I think, might have been asking if she was Der Trihs. That wasn't an attack, but instead, an honest question: his unrelenting style of refusing to acknowledge the foundations of thought different to his own seemed quite familiar. If mozg turned out to be that same poster, I would have done what I did to DT on the Dope, and just ignored any posts she made.

****** I don't really have any interest in flaming another poster. I do have an interest in making sure that DoMeBo doesn't become a hostile environment to theists who want to have a discussion that doesn't involve the essential 'Your God is a fuckwad' argument that some strident atheists like to interject in these arguments to shut down discussion of matters which require acceptance of certain 'ground rules'.



So yeah. I reported a post. MsRobyn backed up a threadshitter. And the threadshitter has now posted again, in an attempt not to respond to anything even remotely related to the OP, but instead, as an attack on the religion that's the foundation thereof. Wouldn't it be more effective to have those sorts of comments moved to their own thread, and allow an uninterrupted thread to continue based upon its own OP's merits?

This is sad, because there was a discussion about this early on. And now it's beginning to creep in, even on the front page.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Liberal

This is sad, because there was a discussion about this early on. And now it's beginning to creep in, even on the front page.

---

Sorry, Lib. Can you link to what you're talking about?

If all mozg came to say was that "ZOMG!!111!!! MOTHER TERESA SUXXORS!!11!! THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SUXXORS!!!11!!" I'd agree with you.

But she posted this, in which she used Mother Teresa's own quotes against her to advance what I perceived as a legitimate point, that there are some people -- Catholic and non-Catholic -- who oppose Mother Teresa's canonization. Given Mother Teresa's visibility and status in the eyes of the world, this not an unreasonable position to take. I know mozg can be abrasive, but she took an honest position and defended it. I will agree that she should have treaded more lightly, however.

When I looked at the entire thread after getting Boozy's report, I didn't see threadshitting. I saw someone complaining about a position they didn't agree with. My problem with it wasn't the issue of Boozy vs. mozg, or their respective arguments. It was what I perceived to be rather uncivil behavior on Boozy's part. I have no objections if the OP wishes to frame the debate and attempts to keep it within that framework. I do have an objection to another poster who attempts to hijack the debate so it's on his terms, and then tries to exclude another poster for not following those terms. And that's the basis of my comment.

He's talking about Oakminster's article, here. There's an ongoing discussion on the subject in Jibba Jabba.

I think Liberal's actually referring to prr's "Principles of Discourse" thread: http://domebo.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=758

[quote=What Exit?]If that was all she came into the thread to post I would agree with you Julie, but it looks like she mainly came in to challenge Mother Theresa as a Saint and backed up why she thought so. It appeared to be Boozahol Squid, P.I. who moved the thread to an abortion debate.

She was not actually shitting on the idea of Saints but objecting to the:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by "Boozahol Squid, P.I.":w0ovitiu

A discussion of canonization requires that you bring with it Catholic sensibilities in regards to matters such as abortion. Terminating a pregnancy is killing a child.

---

The thread clearly got hijacked but more by Boozahol Squid, P.I. than mozg

This is all just in my opinion as a poster. I don't mod The Crucible.[/quote:w0ovitiu]

The problem is, that objection to a Roman Catholic rite (canonization) requires Roman Catholic sensibilites. What sense does it make to argue against one of the postulates of the organ that canonizes in a debate about canonization? I'm reminded of my first class on Lobachevskian geometry, when a student remarked "Come on, parallel lines don't meet!"

What benefit can possibly be gained by railing against postulates?

And please let me apologize for addressing these issues where people are offended. I know that at least one poster is bothered by a "free speech" angle, which mystifies me, but there you go.

I think the mod note was perfectly fair, but can I say something? MsRobyn, in that particular note, came across to me at least as very lecture-y and kind of unpleasant. Boozahol Squid's crime here was pretty minor -- I think it would probably help maintain the general good feeling around here if the moderators made a real effort NOT to sound like the ones on the SDMB always did. Every other message board I've been to, the moderation is normally more casual and friendly than it was on the SDMB. The SDMB mods may think it's okay to sound like a schoolteacher scolding an 8 year old, but most places manage fine with moderators just piping up when necessary to remind people of the rules.

I'm not saying MsRobyn was cruel or over some sort of line or anything. I just think people should really make an effort not to emulate the SDMB mods because the general tension there was there between moderators and everyone else is not something I'd like to see here, and it's not something I ever really saw at other fora. We're all adults. People will say things that are against the rules but for the most part they don't need to be lectured.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

If that was all she came into the thread to post I would agree with you Julie, but it looks like she mainly came in to challenge Mother Theresa as a Saint and backed up why she thought so. It appeared to be Boozahol Squid, P.I. who moved the thread to an abortion debate.

---

I disagree. mozg brought up abortion, giving MT's views on it as a reason she should not be canonized. Booz merely pointed out that this is a rather weak argument considering the Church's stance on abortion.

OK, I read the entire thread instead of just bits and pieces, and I no longer think it was threadshitting. Questions were asked and mozg answered them, she didn't just pop in to shit all over the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

I disagree. mozg brought up abortion, giving MT's views on it as a reason she should not be canonized. Booz merely pointed out that this is a rather weak argument considering the Church's stance on abortion.

---

That really was the point of my objection, for what it's worth.

[quote=Boozahol Squid, P.I.][quote="What Exit?":3s905rdp]If that was all she came into the thread to post I would agree with you Julie, but it looks like she mainly came in to challenge Mother Theresa as a Saint and backed up why she thought so. It appeared to be Boozahol Squid, P.I. who moved the thread to an abortion debate.

She was not actually shitting on the idea of Saints but objecting to the:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by "Boozahol Squid, P.I.":3s905rdp

A discussion of canonization requires that you bring with it Catholic sensibilities in regards to matters such as abortion. Terminating a pregnancy is killing a child.

---

The thread clearly got hijacked but more by Boozahol Squid, P.I. than mozg

This is all just in my opinion as a poster. I don't mod The Crucible.[/quote:3s905rdp]

The problem is, that objection to a Roman Catholic rite (canonization) requires Roman Catholic sensibilites. What sense does it make to argue against one of the postulates of the organ that canonizes in a debate about canonization? I'm reminded of my first class on Lobachevskian geometry, when a student remarked "Come on, parallel lines don't meet!"

What benefit can possibly be gained by railing against postulates?[/quote:3s905rdp]
I was strictly addressing Julie's complaint in the OP about thread shitting. I don't see the thread shitting. Her debate might be off but that is up to you to try and make your point. You seem to have a good one.

On preview: Thank you Harlequin.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

If that was all she came into the thread to post I would agree with you Julie, but it looks like she mainly came in to challenge Mother Theresa as a Saint and backed up why she thought so. It appeared to be Boozahol Squid, P.I. who moved the thread to an abortion debate.

---

I disagree. mozg brought up abortion, giving MT's views on it as a reason she should not be canonized. Booz merely pointed out that this is a rather weak argument considering the Church's stance on abortion.

---

This is form the Op and all I was commenting on: 100% prime grade-A threadshitting.

It does not look like threadshitting to me. The abortion hijack or side debate is a seperate issue and I think more on Boozahol Squid, P.I. than mozg. Not that his point was wrong, in context I respect his point.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

I was strictly addressing Julie's complaint in the OP about thread shitting. I don't see the thread shitting. Her debate might be off but that is up to you to try and make your point. You seem to have a good one.

On preview: Thank you Harlequin.

---

Let me make my point as basic as I can:

In a debate regarding the beliefs of one group, should another group's interpretation matter?

In another manner: Should Paul's commentary on the Gospels be used as a basis on a discussion of the Talmud?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

It does not look like threadshitting to me. The abortion hijack or side debate is a seperate issue and I think more on Boozahol Squid, P.I. than mozg. Not that his point was wrong, in context I respect his point.

---

Okay. If I want a debate on Catholic Dogma, where should I post it? Not a general discussion of whether or not Catholic Dogma is worth a jack shit, but whether it applies to X scenario, is there a place on this board where that can be discussed?

[quote=Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by "What Exit?":25ylpd0q

I was strictly addressing Julie's complaint in the OP about thread shitting. I don't see the thread shitting. Her debate might be off but that is up to you to try and make your point. You seem to have a good one.

On preview: Thank you Harlequin.

---

Let me make my point as basic as I can:

In a debate regarding the beliefs of one group, should another group's interpretation matter?

In another manner: Should Paul's commentary on the Gospels be used as a basis on a discussion of the Talmud?[/quote:25ylpd0q]
How does that make what she did threadshitting? I don't really care about the rest or I would have posted in that thread. I have a soft spot for Pope JP II and I hope he gets his sainthood but I don't care enough to debate it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

How does that make what she did threadshitting? I don't really care about the rest or I would have posted in that thread. I have a soft spot for Pope JP II and I hope he gets his sainthood but I don't care enough to debate it.

---

Then, really, you shouldn't comment on a debate thread about him being canonized.

[quote=Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by "What Exit?":16cc6vxy

It does not look like threadshitting to me. The abortion hijack or side debate is a seperate issue and I think more on Boozahol Squid, P.I. than mozg. Not that his point was wrong, in context I respect his point.

---

Okay. If I want a debate on Catholic Dogma, where should I post it? Not a general discussion of whether or not Catholic Dogma is worth a jack shit, but whether it applies to X scenario, is there a place on this board where that can be discussed?[/quote:16cc6vxy]
What was wrong with where it was? I think you are missing my point, I don't see anything particularly wrong in that thread. I am commenting on the threadshitting charge and only as a member.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Okay. If I want a debate on Catholic Dogma, where should I post it? Not a general discussion of whether or not Catholic Dogma is worth a jack shit, but whether it applies to X scenario, is there a place on this board where that can be discussed?

---

What was wrong with where it was? I think you are missing my point, I don't see anything particularly wrong in that thread. I am commenting on the threadshitting charge and only as a member.[/quote]
When I see your name, I only think of a wonderful evening I spent watching a Yankees-Indians playoff game, not as a mod.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

The problem is, that objection to a Roman Catholic rite (canonization) requires Roman Catholic sensibilites. What sense does it make to argue against one of the postulates of the organ that canonizes in a debate about canonization? I'm reminded of my first class on Lobachevskian geometry, when a student remarked "Come on, parallel lines don't meet!"

What benefit can possibly be gained by railing against postulates?

---

Fantastically put. That is the very crux of the problem, the misunderstanding of which is sadly more wide ranging than one would think among people of our calibre.

As an aside, I have added this topic, threadshitting, to my general principles of discourse for this community to clarify, apart from particular issues in this thread. It will be helpful, I hope, to talk about things in terms of the principles we mean to apply generally around here.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

In a debate regarding the beliefs of one group, should another group's interpretation matter?

---

I think they absolutely are in this case, because the Catholic church and its leadership want to have a seat at the table when it comes to advising governments, shaping political policy, and influencing laws outside the Vatican City.

Every time a 'community panel' regarding some moral or ethical topic is devised (such as politicians debating things like abortion, availability of birth control, and sex education), you're going to see religious leaders expected to be given a seat on the panel.

I think if they want their opinions to be heard in my government, then they open themselves up to criticism of what they hold out as their ideals. That includes people (me included) saying that if you elevate those who are greedy and hateful, and those who increase suffering through their words and deeds, then that reflects upon you too.

If a saint is godly, and godly is how Catholics are supposed to be, then I say they either need to change their definition of ethical, moral, and good deeds and words, or they need to stop claiming that they need to be consulted as an authority on what is ethical, moral and good. Because quite frankly, the idea that Mother Teresa was an ethical, moral and good person in word and deed is very, very disturbing to me.

Since it has been agreed that her deeds and her words are congruent with what the Catholic church's official stance is, I think it's far past time that everyone took a very critical look at the ideals they hold out, and the harm they do to this world.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

In a debate regarding the beliefs of one group, should another group's interpretation matter?

---

I think they absolutely are in this case, because the Catholic church and its leadership want to have a seat at the table when it comes to advising governments, shaping political policy, and influencing laws outside the Vatican City.

Every time a 'community panel' regarding some moral or ethical topic is devised (such as politicians debating things like abortion, availability of birth control, and sex education), you're going to see religious leaders expected to be given a seat on the panel.

I think if they want their opinions to be heard in my government, then they open themselves up to criticism of what they hold out as their ideals. That includes people (me included) saying that if you elevate those who are greedy and hateful, and those who increase suffering through their words and deeds, then that reflects upon you too.

If a saint is godly, and godly is how Catholics are supposed to be, then I say they either need to change their definition of ethical, moral, and good deeds and words, or they need to stop claiming that they need to be consulted as an authority on what is ethical, moral and good. Because quite frankly, the idea that Mother Teresa was an ethical, moral and good person in word and deed is very, very disturbing to me.

Since it has been agreed that her deeds and her words are congruent with what the Catholic church's official stance is, I think it's far past time that everyone took a very critical look at the ideals they hold out, and the harm they do to this world.

---

This is a very interesting piece. I just wish you'd propose it in a separate thread that isn't dedicated to internal matters of the Church. If you do so, I promise I'll do my best to engage you on it.

[quote=Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by "Boozahol Squid, P.I.":3b37jo50

In a debate regarding the beliefs of one group, should another group's interpretation matter?

---

I think they absolutely are in this case, because the Catholic church and its leadership want to have a seat at the table when it comes to advising governments, shaping political policy, and influencing laws outside the Vatican City.

Every time a 'community panel' regarding some moral or ethical topic is devised (such as politicians debating things like abortion, availability of birth control, and sex education), you're going to see religious leaders expected to be given a seat on the panel.

I think if they want their opinions to be heard in my government, then they open themselves up to criticism of what they hold out as their ideals. That includes people (me included) saying that if you elevate those who are greedy and hateful, and those who increase suffering through their words and deeds, then that reflects upon you too.

If a saint is godly, and godly is how Catholics are supposed to be, then I say they either need to change their definition of ethical, moral, and good deeds and words, or they need to stop claiming that they need to be consulted as an authority on what is ethical, moral and good. Because quite frankly, the idea that Mother Teresa was an ethical, moral and good person in word and deed is very, very disturbing to me.

Since it has been agreed that her deeds and her words are congruent with what the Catholic church's official stance is, I think it's far past time that everyone took a very critical look at the ideals they hold out, and the harm they do to this world.

---

This is a very interesting piece. I just wish you'd propose it in a separate thread that isn't dedicated to internal matters of the Church. If you do so, I promise I'll do my best to engage you on it.[/quote:3b37jo50] Seconded.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

This is a very interesting piece. I just wish you'd propose it in a separate thread that isn't dedicated to internal matters of the Church.

---

Thirded.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

So there's this thread going on in The Crucible. It's a thread supposedly about canonization of Catholic saints. This topic is rather broad, and there are plenty of avenues that can be discussed and debated. However, one poster decided to step in, and instead of approaching the topic in good faith, decided to take the opportunity to attack, first, one aspect of Catholic belief, and then, later the Church (and its worshippers) itself.

[snip]

So yeah. I reported a post. MsRobyn backed up a threadshitter. And the threadshitter has now posted again, in an attempt not to respond to anything even remotely related to the OP, but instead, as an attack on the religion that's the foundation thereof. Wouldn't it be more effective to have those sorts of comments moved to their own thread, and allow an uninterrupted thread to continue based upon its own OP's merits?

---

Wow, you're kidding, right? Because if not, your self-admitted irritation has severely warped your perspective. The first post I see in that thread by mozg was nothing more than a contribution to the discussion about Theresa's legacy that was already taking place. Sure, her comments weren't all happy and loving toward religion, but what the fuck does that matter? Mozg was injecting fairly specific commentary on a fairly specific point of discussion in the thread. If anything, you were the one to derail things by then attacking her beliefs about religion, as all her posts going forward that you seem to be taking exception to are responses to those attacks.

To me, the crux of this argument is whether the following comment (in post #13) was appropriate for the thread

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

The greatest destroyer of peace today? Religion is responsible for more hatred, torture, mutilation and killing. You want suffering? Just take a look at a holy war.

---

Would this provocative comment be considered acceptable in all Crucible threads pertaining to religion? If not, but it was acceptable in this particular one, why?

Fourthed.

That's what I had been arguing for previously. The original discussion should remain on-track and side issues, flames, nitpicking or single-issue assaults (you get the idea) should be placed in a new thread for the purposes of discussion.

The thread was derailed as of post #13.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

The greatest destroyer of peace today? Religion is responsible for more hatred, torture, mutilation and killing. You want suffering? Just take a look at a holy war.

---

A classic red herring.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ulfhjorr

Wow, you're kidding, right? Because if not, your self-admitted irritation has severely warped your perspective. The first post I see in that thread by mozg was nothing more than a contribution to the discussion about Theresa's legacy that was already taking place. Sure, her comments weren't all happy and loving toward religion, but what the fuck does that matter? Mozg was injecting fairly specific commentary on a fairly specific point of discussion in the thread. If anything, you were the one to derail things by then attacking her beliefs about religion, as all her posts going forward that you seem to be taking exception to are responses to those attacks.

---

I think what we have are two different perspectives on what the thread is supposed to be about. Some (including the OP) are thinking that it's a thread about whether or not certain people have met the Catholic criteria for being made a saint. Others think that the question is whether the criteria are appropriate, ethical, morally just, etc. Two different topics, one thread. Makes it tough to have a meaningful conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ulfhjorr

Wow, you're kidding, right? Because if not, your self-admitted irritation has severely warped your perspective. The first post I see in that thread by mozg was nothing more than a contribution to the discussion about Theresa's legacy that was already taking place. Sure, her comments weren't all happy and loving toward religion, but what the fuck does that matter? Mozg was injecting fairly specific commentary on a fairly specific point of discussion in the thread. If anything, you were the one to derail things by then attacking her beliefs about religion, as all her posts going forward that you seem to be taking exception to are responses to those attacks.

---

Nope, I'm not kidding. The first post in the thread by mozg (in particular, the bit I responded to) involved her commentary not on the validity of canonization, but on some more abstract theory of who is a good person or not.

My issue is that abstract theories about good people have nothing to do with canonization. Canonization has everything to do with following the strictures of the Catholic Church.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

I think the mod note was perfectly fair, but can I say something? MsRobyn, in that particular note, came across to me at least as very lecture-y and kind of unpleasant. Boozahol Squid's crime here was pretty minor -- I think it would probably help maintain the general good feeling around here if the moderators made a real effort NOT to sound like the ones on the SDMB always did. Every other message board I've been to, the moderation is normally more casual and friendly than it was on the SDMB. The SDMB mods may think it's okay to sound like a schoolteacher scolding an 8 year old, but most places manage fine with moderators just piping up when necessary to remind people of the rules.

I'm not saying MsRobyn was cruel or over some sort of line or anything. I just think people should really make an effort not to emulate the SDMB mods because the general tension there was there between moderators and everyone else is not something I'd like to see here, and it's not something I ever really saw at other fora. We're all adults. People will say things that are against the rules but for the most part they don't need to be lectured.

---

Agreed fully. I didn't want to put that in the OP because I didn't want this to come off as an attack on MsRobyn, so I'm glad you brought it up in a great, non-attacking way.

I just posted the following in the ADF thread, but I think it's actually more relevant here:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

I think what we have are two different perspectives on what the thread is supposed to be about. Some (including the OP) are thinking that it's a thread about whether or not certain people have met the Catholic criteria for being made a saint. Others think that the question is whether the criteria are appropriate, ethical, morally just, etc. Two different topics, one thread. Makes it tough to have a meaningful conversation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheFlame

To me, the crux of this argument is whether the following comment (in post #13) was appropriate for the thread

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

The greatest destroyer of peace today? Religion is responsible for more hatred, torture, mutilation and killing. You want suffering? Just take a look at a holy war.

---

Would this provocative comment be considered acceptable in all Crucible threads pertaining to religion? If not, but it was acceptable in this particular one, why?

---

I was just thinking the same thing. That is really what got the ball rolling, and while reading the thread that is the line that made me stop. But in the context of the post as a whole I do think that it is fine.

Speaking as a poster and not a mod (not my forum) the problem is really that it sets up a secondary debate, and even a tertiary debate about abortion, that has nothing to do with the OP and that should have been splintered off into it's own thread. I don't think that any single instance is threadshitting on its own, but collectively the posts (from both sides) serve to derail the thread in a way that makes it hard to recover from.

I think it was the right call not to warn for threadshitting, but I think that the response to Boozy was out of proportion. I would have prefered to see a request to keep the thread on topic and to start splinter threads if there was a wish to debate abortion of the relative evils/benetfits of the Catholic church.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

I just posted the following in the ADF thread, but I think it's actually more relevant here:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

I think what we have are two different perspectives on what the thread is supposed to be about. Some (including the OP) are thinking that it's a thread about whether or not certain people have met the Catholic criteria for being made a saint. Others think that the question is whether the criteria are appropriate, ethical, morally just, etc. Two different topics, one thread. Makes it tough to have a meaningful conversation.

---

---

Yeah. If this was addressed by TPTB, and it was decided that the latter was always acceptable, I'll slink off and accept a warning. It would make me think that this place is more unfair than the Dope, for what it's worth.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

In a debate regarding the beliefs of one group, should another group's interpretation matter?

---

I think they absolutely are in this case, because the Catholic church and its leadership want to have a seat at the table when it comes to advising governments, shaping political policy, and influencing laws outside the Vatican City.

Every time a 'community panel' regarding some moral or ethical topic is devised (such as politicians debating things like abortion, availability of birth control, and sex education), you're going to see religious leaders expected to be given a seat on the panel.

I think if they want their opinions to be heard in my government, then they open themselves up to criticism of what they hold out as their ideals. That includes people (me included) saying that if you elevate those who are greedy and hateful, and those who increase suffering through their words and deeds, then that reflects upon you too.

If a saint is godly, and godly is how Catholics are supposed to be, then I say they either need to change their definition of ethical, moral, and good deeds and words, or they need to stop claiming that they need to be consulted as an authority on what is ethical, moral and good. Because quite frankly, the idea that Mother Teresa was an ethical, moral and good person in word and deed is very, very disturbing to me.

Since it has been agreed that her deeds and her words are congruent with what the Catholic church's official stance is, I think it's far past time that everyone took a very critical look at the ideals they hold out, and the harm they do to this world.

---

I'm sorry, but having read the initial thread, this thread, and the above quote, I still don't understand how a discussion of Catholic Church beliefs and policies is relevant to a discussion of whether or not someone is worthy of canonization. If I were to go into a thread on whether or not someone on American Idol should or should not have won and started raving about how American Idol is an example of the dumbing down of American television and culture, wouldn't that be an example of threadshitting? How is this any different?

If you have a problem with the beliefs of the Catholic Church, or the way that religion seems to be pervading society today, fine. As a matter of fact, I agree with you on many of the issues you mention above. But, as several others have pointed out, start your own thread about it instead of hijacking someone else's.

Yeah, my first reaction was "threadshitting", now I've read the thread a few times, and the surrounding discussions, and I'm not so sure. I think the better option would have been to split the thread, forming a new topic, and gently remind posters to try to keep on topic. I think thread splitting should generally be prefered, when dealing with threads that wander off topic.

Also, speaking as a poster, I don't think strident atheism in the Der Trihs mould is really all that helpful. If you're trying to persuade people to adopt your position (and if you aren't, why are you posting in TC?), then nobody is going to be convinced by being belittled or insulted.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

Yeah. If this was addressed by TPTB, and it was decided that the latter was always acceptable, I'll slink off and accept a warning. It would make me think that this place is more unfair than the Dope, for what it's worth.

---

Come again?

ETA: It doesn't look like you have actually gotten anything official. I am not sure what official would mean or look like, but I do know that there aren't notes on your profile. I started a topic in The Hive so we can clarify some of this and we don't turn this place into SDMB redux with the lack of clarity in mod actions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

Yeah. If this was addressed by TPTB, and it was decided that the latter was always acceptable, I'll slink off and accept a warning. It would make me think that this place is more unfair than the Dope, for what it's worth.

---

I don't necessarily think that you need to think of it as a warning of any kind at this point or take it so negatively. This discussion proves that we're still working out how we want this board to work and that thread is our first real test case. So insomuch as that is concerned, I want to thank you for creating it.

Once decided, and if it's decided against you, then it shouldn't be so much "OK, I was warned and I'm sulking over it", but "Ok, now we know how it works on this board" and "Fair enough, next time I'll create a new thread". Then, going forward, it shouldn't be so much as "Mod Warning", but "Mod advice to take it to a new thread".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CRSP

Also, speaking as a poster, I don't think strident atheism in the Der Trihs mould is really all that helpful. If you're trying to persuade people to adopt your position (and if you aren't, why are you posting in TC?), then nobody is going to be convinced by being belittled or insulted.

---

I agree, but we are going to get people like that and I don't know that we want to push them away any more than we want to push away the religious. As long as people are good about keeping to the debate topic we should be ok though.

I am missing a piece. Was the objection about threadshitting or about hijacking the thread into another debate?

The canonization thread was clearly hijacked off the clear intent of the canonization thread. This I agree with. It seems as if this thread has changed into a second complaint about the side debates in the canonization thread.

It seems too late to do it cleanly but the thread can be split with this software into two separate debates.

Can we split the canonization thread and merge this one and the thunderdome thread?

As I said in the Thunderdome thread, I'm OK with the OP of the thread framing the discussion, and with trying to keep the discussion along those lines.

That said, however, I have re-considered my comments to Boozy in the original thread. I will edit them appropriately. I furthermore promise not to moderate a) at 4:00 a.m., or b) before I've had my coffee. ;)

I will also merge the two threads.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

I am missing a piece. Was the objection about threadshitting or about hijacking the thread into another debate?

---

Perhaps my entire issue is that I don't really see the difference between the two. Hijacking one debate into another does seem a little threadshitty, especially because the second debate is kinda based on opposition to some of the founding thoughts of the first.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheFlame

To me, the crux of this argument is whether the following comment (in post #13) was appropriate for the thread

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

The greatest destroyer of peace today? Religion is responsible for more hatred, torture, mutilation and killing. You want suffering? Just take a look at a holy war.

---

Would this provocative comment be considered acceptable in all Crucible threads pertaining to religion? If not, but it was acceptable in this particular one, why?

---

To me, this is a perfectly valid point, as it directly answers a quote from Theresa, both of which, in turn, were provided in response to chacoguy420's question as to why her behavior wasn't saintly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

I think what we have are two different perspectives on what the thread is supposed to be about. Some (including the OP) are thinking that it's a thread about whether or not certain people have met the Catholic criteria for being made a saint. Others think that the question is whether the criteria are appropriate, ethical, morally just, etc. Two different topics, one thread. Makes it tough to have a meaningful conversation.

---

Here, I think, the problem is that if you want to have a single, narrowly focused topic of discussion (as opposed to a wider, more free-ranging one), the onus is on the OP to craft a first post that specifically calls for such. A thread title including the question of who "should" be granted some honor and asking "So, can you make a case for, or against, MT, PJPII, or FJS?" is not a specific call for only posts along the lines of "Does [person X] meet the qualifications" for the honor in question.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

The first post in the thread by mozg (in particular, the bit I responded to) involved her commentary not on the validity of canonization, but on some more abstract theory of who is a good person or not.

My issue is that abstract theories about good people have nothing to do with canonization. Canonization has everything to do with following the strictures of the Catholic Church.

---

And yet, you seemed not to care much about those posts by Excalibre, EJsGirl, chacoguy420, or others who were discussing the same topic.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NAF1138

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

Yeah. If this was addressed by TPTB, and it was decided that the latter was always acceptable, I'll slink off and accept a warning. It would make me think that this place is more unfair than the Dope, for what it's worth.

---

Come again?

ETA: It doesn't look like you have actually gotten anything official. I am not sure what official would mean or look like, but I do know that there aren't notes on your profile. I started a topic in The Hive so we can clarify some of this and we don't turn this place into SDMB redux with the lack of clarity in mod actions.

---

Mainly,I was intending that if you folks who decided what happened around here decide that threads should be allowed to be altered (in the manner the one in question was,) I'll take my medicine. I just won't like it.
I really do appreciate the Hive, and I like the way things work here a lot.

Plus, NAF, if you rule against me, I'm totally going to vote you first in every Mafia game we play from now on.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ulfhjorr

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

My issue is that abstract theories about good people have nothing to do with canonization. Canonization has everything to do with following the strictures of the Catholic Church.

---

And yet, you seemed not to care much about those posts by Excalibre, EJsGirl, chacoguy420, or others who were discussing the same topic.

---

Excalibre's comments regarded whether or not MT wasted charitable donations. I think a case could be made that the Church's goals in helping the poor were not being met. This is much more in line with the actual discussion than complaining that MT supported abortion, which clearly IS in line with the Church's overall philosophy and goals.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ulfhjorr

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

The first post in the thread by mozg (in particular, the bit I responded to) involved her commentary not on the validity of canonization, but on some more abstract theory of who is a good person or not.

My issue is that abstract theories about good people have nothing to do with canonization. Canonization has everything to do with following the strictures of the Catholic Church.

---

And yet, you seemed not to care much about those posts by Excalibre, EJsGirl, chacoguy420, or others who were discussing the same topic.

---

Yeah. You're right. I found all of those posters to reasonably be discussing the OP.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

Perhaps my entire issue is that I don't really see the difference between the two. Hijacking one debate into another does seem a little threadshitty, especially because the second debate is kinda based on opposition to some of the founding thoughts of the first.

---

Threadshitting in the thread to me would have been Mozg coming in to crap all over the RCC with her initial post. 100% threadshitting would have been to do just that and not had more content. She gave reasons for why she thought MT was not worthy of Sainthood. You gave back a good reason why her complaint was not an appropriate debate point to the discussion. From there the hijack occurs with the the posting between you and Mozg on abortion. I don't think her reasons our immediately obvious as invalid and that is why I do not see it as threadshitting. What happened after that was a very serious hi-jack and the reason why I would hate to moderate The Crucible or Capitol Hill.

Her later points would have been threadshitting if posted cold but she was answering you at that point. I think you should have pulled back and asked her to please start a new thread for her debate.

To Boozahol Squid, P.I.:
Also please note you did not get a warning and nothing was logged against you. No Mod has handed out a warning yet.

Here is what I did. I don't know that it's the perfect solution, but it's better than the way I first handled it.

• I split the initial thread into two. The original now deals solely with the process of canonization with respect to the Catholic church. The new thread deals with the morality and ethics of candidates for sainthood, and I changed the title to reflect that. It should be crystal clear which posts go in which thread.[/*:m:2vubz7xq]
• I modified my comments to Boozahol Squid, PI, and I apologized to him. I came down on him harder than he really deserved. All the same, calling someone a troll in The Crucible is not appropriate. That has nothing to do with SDMB policy and everything to do with good manners. I hope we're clear on that, as well.[/*:m:2vubz7xq]
• The OP of any thread is always welcome to clarify the terms of the discussion therein if it gets too far afield from the OP's original intent. I know that discussions (good ones, anyway) meander, and tangents get wandered into. However, we've all seen threads that started out as good, interesting debates turn ugly. This isn't a specific dig at Julie or anyone else, just a general recommendation.[/*:m:2vubz7xq]

I will post a sticky in TC with some general guidelines. They don't have the force of policy, but I think we'd all do well to remember the lessons from this experience. I would, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Threadshitting in the thread to me would have been Mozg coming in to crap all over the RCC with her initial post. 100% threadshitting would have been to do just that and not had more content. She gave reasons for why she thought MT was not worthy of Sainthood. You gave back a good reason why her complaint was not an appropriate debate point to the discussion. From there the hijack occurs with the the posting between you and Mozg on abortion. I don't think her reasons our immediately obvious as invalid and that is why I do not see it as threadshitting.

---

Perhaps I hold posters to too high a standard. I rember catsix from the SDMB. I really doubt that she has any question about the thoughts of the RCC on abortion. If she really does, than I'm happy to have fought her ignorance (or informed her dome, as some poster amusingly put it in the thread in question, which sentiment I thought rocked.) If mozg thought MT was not worthy of sainthood based upon any aspect of sainthood which applies (those being the ones installed by Rome, the group that decides these things), she failed to mention them. That's why I saw it as threadshitting/trolling/not-being-a-good-neighbor.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit

Also please note you did not get a warning and nothing was logged against you. I don't think any Mod has handed out a warning yet.

---

Thanks. I appreciate that, but my original complaint was intended not to get a clarification on my own actions, but on mozg's. It was the response to that clarification that's gotten me upset, not some sort of worry about the dangers between a mod-note and a warning. I assume that if I get too close to being kicked out, you guys will just restrict me to the Game Room place, where I'm happy to post endlessly on Mafia games, Diplomacy manuevers, and Cleveland's chances of winning any sort of title in professional sports before I'm dead.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MsRobyn

• I split the initial thread into two. The original now deals solely with the process of canonization with respect to the Catholic church. The new thread deals with the morality and ethics of candidates for sainthood, and I changed the title to reflect that. It should be crystal clear which posts go in which thread.

---

• [/*:m:tllrk2ce]

Yay!

Quote:

---

• I modified my comments to Boozahol Squid, PI, and I apologized to him. I came down on him harder than he really deserved. All the same, calling someone a troll in The Crucible is not appropriate. That has nothing to do with SDMB policy and everything to do with good manners. I hope we're clear on that, as well.[/*:m:tllrk2ce]

---

Yay! I'll not do that again.

Please, make an addendum to the rules about calling someone a troll outside of the Thunderdome.

Quote:

---

• The OP of any thread is always welcome to clarify the terms of the discussion therein if it gets too far afield from the OP's original intent. I know that discussions (good ones, anyway) meander, and tangents get wandered into. However, we've all seen threads that started out as good, interesting debates turn ugly. This isn't a specific dig at Julie or anyone else, just a general recommendation.[/*:m:tllrk2ce]

---

I try not to make many OPs. So... good stuff.

When I start a thread, I don't want to own it, but I do want the replies to bear at least a tangential relationship to the topic. That can mean that the topic simply dies because it's not that interesting to others (my tastes are odd), but I'd hate to see every thread on religious matters devolve into "religion is evil!" "Is not!" "Is too!"

Even though I'm generally in the camp that regards religion as silly, I like talking about religion. I like talking about religion with the religion's followers. There's no way to do that if namecalling right at the outset becomes acceptable.

But, here's the thing, I don't really want this to be something moderators do. Moderators can't make hateful people nice, or mean people kind, or argumentative people conciliatory, and I don't want them to try. I'd like the community to try to keep discussions going by ignoring hijacks (except in other threads like this one or mine in Thunderdome) and generally policing ourselves.


On preview: I love splitting the topic, especially right now when we're not overwhelming the Crucible with traffic. Thank you!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

those being the ones installed by Rome, the group that decides these things

---

And here I was thinking that Rome was a city in Italy, and that the Vatican City was the capital of the Catholic church. Or do you view the Catholic church as having total authority over the city of Rome, as it is a party of the nation state of Italy?

Because quite frankly this kind of muddying of the lines is exactly why I have a problem with the idea that only Catholic opinions should matter when we talk about sainthood.

Does the pope rule Rome, or are you deliberately conflating the Catholic church and the Vatican City with another entity that is outside its authority?

I'm well aware of the Catholic church's position on abortion. I still think that Mother Teresa is abhorrent in part because she parroted the party line when the poor she supposedly served would have been better off with access to birth control and abortion.

If they're going to hold her up as ideal, and I think they will, why should we not criticize them for it?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

And here I was thinking that Rome was a city in Italy, and that the Vatican City was the capital of the Catholic church. Or do you view the Catholic church as having total authority over the city of Rome, as it is a party of the nation state of Italy?

Because quite frankly this kind of muddying of the lines is exactly why I have a problem with the idea that only Catholic opinions should matter when we talk about sainthood.

Does the pope rule Rome, or are you deliberately conflating the Catholic church and the Vatican City with another entity that is outside its authority?

---

I'm sorry you have an issue with metaphors. This is an issue for you to discuss with your therapist. Or your 8th grade English teacher.

Quote:

---

I'm well aware of the Catholic church's position on abortion. I still think that Mother Teresa is abhorrent in part because she parroted the party line when the poor she supposedly served would have been better off with access to birth control and abortion.

If they're going to hold her up as ideal, and I think they will, why should we not criticize them for it?

---

As I've said (and others) before, please do. Just in the appropriate forum. If you can't find the precisely correct one, just make a new thread. I promise, we Papists will follow and debate you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

and Cleveland's chances of winning any sort of title in professional sports before I'm dead.

---

(Cut for clarity)

Everyone deserves a dream. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

those being the ones installed by Rome, the group that decides these things

---

And here I was thinking that Rome was a city in Italy, and that the Vatican City was the capital of the Catholic church. Or do you view the Catholic church as having total authority over the city of Rome, as it is a party of the nation state of Italy?

---

Look up metonymy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

I'm sorry you have an issue with metaphors. This is an issue for you to discuss with your therapist. Or your 8th grade English teacher.

---

What you did is not a metaphor. Rome and Vatican City are two separate governmental entities. While the city of Rome completely surrounds Vatican City, the latter is itself an independent country with the pope as its head of state. While Catholics may be fond of calling the pope and the rest of their church's leadership 'Rome', it's not really factually accurate.

Of course there are a lot of facts that aren't accurate in religion.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

As I've said (and others) before, please do. Just in the appropriate forum. If you can't find the precisely correct one, just make a new thread. I promise, we Papists will follow and debate you.

---

After many, many years of having religion stick its head in, uninvited, into matters of government and law, I really don't think they have any room to suggest that secular criticism of their practices are unwelcome in their halls.

Religious people have shoved god into the courtroom, and now I'm shoving back. When religion stops entering the halls of secular government uninvited to tell everyone what they're doing wrong, I'll consider not going into their web forum threads to tell them what I think is wrong with them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

What you did is not a metaphor. Rome and Vatican City are two separate governmental entities. While the city of Rome completely surrounds Vatican City, the latter is itself an independent country with the pope as its head of state. While Catholics may be fond of calling the pope and the rest of their church's leadership 'Rome', it's not really factually accurate.

---

Okay, but try as I might, I can't come up with a reason why this Rome thing matters at all.

Quote:

---

Religious people have shoved god into the courtroom, and now I'm shoving back. When religion stops entering the halls of secular government uninvited to tell everyone what they're doing wrong, I'll consider not going into their web forum threads to tell them what I think is wrong with them.

---

Well, and not that this is the place to discuss this, but Catholics are probably not the biggest concern if your issue is with the encroachment of religion into the realm of law.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ulfhjorr

Sure, her comments weren't all happy and loving toward religion, but what the fuck does that matter?

---

Some people around here get a serious case of the vapors if anyone criticizes their particular godfest, and believe that their feelings on the Holy Trinity should shape public policy here at DoMeBo, like it does in supposedly secular governments.

I want to third Excalibre's comments on moderating here, BTW.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hostile Dialect

So you want people to be banned from debating Z? That's not fair; any question of X will call Z into question, too...

---

I don't think its unreasonable that people should be able to start debates on specific aspects of a religion and have them take place within the bounds set out in the OP, and be protected from sweeping, thread-derailing attacks on that religion (or religion in general).

Similarly, if someone were to start a thread in Capitol Hill on a particular aspect of one political party's policies.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hostile Dialect

So you want people to be banned from debating Z?

---

Hardly. He specifically says he'd be interested in debating that in another thread.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hostile Dialect

I'd like to think I wouldn't run crying to the mods about it.

---

I didn't run crying to any mods. I disagreed with a mod's decision in that thread.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Okay, but try as I might, I can't come up with a reason why this Rome thing matters at all.

---

You can't think of a reason why separating leadership of a particular religion with the government of a separate city is an important distinction to make?

Would you object if every time Donald Wuerl (archbishop in Washington, DC) spoke, someone referred to that as the pronouncement of Washington?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Well, and not that this is the place to discuss this, but Catholics are probably not the biggest concern if your issue is with the encroachment of religion into the realm of law.

---

I oppose all religion in the realm of law. All of it, all the time. If that thread were about Islam or Presbyterians, I'd have tailored my response to them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hostile Dialect

Some people around here get a serious case of the vapors if anyone criticizes their particular godfest, and believe that their feelings on the Holy Trinity should shape public policy here at DoMeBo, like it does in supposedly secular governments.

---

And I think religion should never be immune to criticism, anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Okay, but try as I might, I can't come up with a reason why this Rome thing matters at all.

---

You can't think of a reason why separating leadership of a particular religion with the government of a separate city is an important distinction to make?

---

I can't think of why the common tendency to refer to the leadership of the RCC, which is located in Rome, as "Rome", matters at all. Is it equally offensive to refer to the workings of the US federal government as "Washington"? After all, the capitol and White House may be in Washington, but they're not the same thing as Washington.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

Hardly. He specifically says he'd be interested in debating that in another thread.

---

Sorry, I meant to imply "in that thread" after the end of that sentence (i.e., "So you want people to be banned from debating Z in that thread?"). I don't think that's a defensible position either.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Julie

I didn't run crying to any mods. I disagreed with a mod's decision in that thread.

---

In other words, you think MsRobyn should have strapped on her jackboots and kicked mozg and her anti-Catholic viewpoint right out of that thread. Distinction without difference (at best).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

And I think religion should never be immune to criticism, anywhere.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hostile Dialect

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Julie

I didn't run crying to any mods. I disagreed with a mod's decision in that thread.

---

In other words, you think MsRobyn should have strapped on her jackboots and kicked mozg and her anti-Catholic viewpoint right out of that thread. Distinction without difference (at best).

---

You are free to point to where I said that or something similar.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Julie

<snip>
But, here's the thing, I don't really want this to be something moderators do. Moderators can't make hateful people nice, or mean people kind, or argumentative people conciliatory, and I don't want them to try. I'd like the community to try to keep discussions going by ignoring hijacks (except in other threads like this one or mine in Thunderdome) and generally policing ourselves.<snip>

---

Eggzackly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Julie

You are free to point to where I said that or something similar.

---

Right in the post I quoted. You said you disagreed with MsRobyn's decision. I guess there's a communication breakdown here. What, exactly, would you rather she do?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hostile Dialect

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Julie

You are free to point to where I said that or something similar.

---

Right in the post I quoted. You said you disagreed with MsRobyn's decision. I guess there's a communication breakdown here. What, exactly, would you rather she do?

---

I stated very clearly in the OP that I disagreed with her calling mozg's posts "not threadshitting" and that, in addition, I wasn't sure there should be a rule against threadshitting in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Julie

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

those being the ones installed by Rome, the group that decides these things

---

And here I was thinking that Rome was a city in Italy, and that the Vatican City was the capital of the Catholic church. Or do you view the Catholic church as having total authority over the city of Rome, as it is a party of the nation state of Italy?

---

Look up metonymy.

---

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

are all threads like this or did you guys just bring this particular brand of asinine debate over to THUNDERDOME specially

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.

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.

---

Oh, that's ridiculous. Anyone who couldn't stand to hear their religon criticized wouldn't come within a mile of this place. It would just be nice if a discussion could be had about a certain topic without the topic being changed.

What if the thread were about baseball...let's say, who's going to be MVP this year. People are discussing various players' stats and such, and I came into the thread yelling about how sports are so stupid, and they shouldn't even honor someone for being able to hit a ball with a stick because it's just so wrong to teach children that this is an acceptable skill to practice, and money in schools shouldn't be spent on sports, and really, how can anyone admire baseball players because sports teach the wrong values and blah blah blah? It would be annoying, to say the least. What is wrong with asking that person to just start a new thread, and leave the people interested in the topic to discuss it?

Can someone attempt to explain what the hell Hostile Dialect is going on about?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hatesfreedom

are all threads like this or did you guys just bring this particular brand of asinine debate over to THUNDERDOME specially

---

Nah, it's not all threads -- just those touching on religion, because that particular human foible tends to make everything it comes into contact with asinine.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Can someone attempt to explain what the hell Hostile Dialect is going on about?

---

Not really though it looks like:

Religion is bad so all threads about religion should be fair game for non-believers.

I hope I am wrong. I think a good solution was found in the end this time.

I see mozg and Hostile Dialect arguing that religion should never be exempt from criticism anywhere.

I respectfully disagree.

There is a time and a place for that criticism, and isn't dropping it like a stinking turd in the middle of someone else's discussion of particular aspects of their religion or beliefs. The only way any society, either as a whole or as a subset such as a message board, is going to be able to engage in productive dialog and discussion of issues is when people are willing to respect the rights of others to discuss such issues free from harassment and assault by those who disagree with or are outright hostile to their beliefs.

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.

It should not be any different here, and it is not a violation of your rights or a trampling on logic or truth in order for you to be asked not to engage in practices which are disrespectful of the beliefs and opinions of others.

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. It isn't up to the rest of the world to coddle YOUR beliefs and allow you to express your (unreasoning) anger whenever you desire to do so.

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.

---

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

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.

. . .

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. It isn't up to the rest of the world to coddle YOUR beliefs and allow you to express your (unreasoning) anger whenever you desire to do so.

---

Uh, wow. That's, uh, kind of a disproportionate response but okay.

"Disproportionate response" seems to be par for the course in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Harlequin

"Disproportionate response" seems to be par for the course in this thread.

---

FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU

Allah protects me from you infidels.

ALSO I found some Jesus fanfic action for you guys

When Hitler stepped through the portal he saw a beautiful man with blue eyes and a long beard. “Greetings, my son,” he said. Hitler looked around. “Where am I?” “In Israel, my son. Come, have lunch with me. My name is Jesus Christ.” Hitler was instantly amazed. He had been a devout Christian all his life and he was honored to eat dinner with Jesus. During lunch Hitler explained the tenets of National Socialism to the Messiah. To his delight, Jesus loved it! Within an hour Jesus was won over to National Socialism. Hitler felt joy in his heart. National Socialism would live again!

While they were talking Hitler found himself checking out Jesus' tight bod. If he wasn't Furor of Germany... But he wasn't Furor anymore,was he? That night when Hitler and Jesus were in bed together Hitler said “Jesus, what do you think of... love between men?” “What do you mean, Hitler?” Jesus asked. Hitler took a deep breath. He would have to be bold. “This is what I mean.” He leaned over and started Frenching with the Lord. At the same time he reached down and started tugging on his already turgid member

Well, that seems to be what is being argued here. "I have a right to attack religion whereever I see it because it's stupid".

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.

You misspelled "Führer", heathen.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Harlequin

"Disproportionate response" seems to be par for the course in this thread.

---

FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU

---

You couldn't afford it, sugar.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hatesfreedom

Allah protects me from you infidels.

---

Perhaps it's your triviality which protects you.

I just can't stop thinking about you NinetyWt. I try every night when I lie down in bed but you won't go away. You won't leave my thoughts in peace. I know Allah says its wrong but how can I feel this way unless its so right.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hatesfreedom

I just can't stop thinking about you NinetyWt. I try every night when I lie down in bed but you won't go away. You won't leave my thoughts in peace. I know Allah says its wrong but how can I feel this way unless its so right.

---

How delightful! I always wanted a pet ferret with a red sweater cap.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimera

Well, that seems to be what is being argued here. "I have a right to attack religion whereever I see it because it's stupid".

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.

---

Yes, it would be just as bad as if one jumped into a secular thread and started witnessing. That's probably my preference for orderliness showing.

Look; I personally hold a lot of opinions that are hostile to the main religions. I was born and raised very conservative Baptist, yet I no longer hold those beliefs. I have made some pretty damning statements on SDMB about the Christian God and some of the core tenants of various Christian sects. I've made some pretty strong statements about the sillyness and offensiveness of some Islamic beliefs.

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

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.

If anyone comes back at that and says "BUT I DO HAVE THAT RIGHT! I HATES THEM! THEY'RE SO STUPID!", then hell yes, it IS a matter of their own character and anger management issues that are interfering with their internal logic and social skills.

If this has been explained inside and upside down so many times by so many people and there are still people that are screaming that religion should not be exempt to their criticism, then it isn't a matter of being right or wrong or any reason at all, but of unreasoning anger toward religion.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hatesfreedom

I just can't stop thinking about you NinetyWt. I try every night when I lie down in bed but you won't go away. You won't leave my thoughts in peace. I know Allah says its wrong but how can I feel this way unless its so right.

---

[modhat:3tivdgnj]hatesfreedom, you seem determined to get banned. You&#39;ve already been approached by a mod in PM. This is now a formal warning. Do not troll the boards.[/modhat:3tivdgnj]

Ooh, our first troll. How exciting!

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&#39;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&#39;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.

Plus these two have carried on their love affair over several threads already. Perhaps they should get their own room.

And we can peek in the keyhole.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Julie

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

---

Absolutely. This isn't a free-for-all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by wring

A hijack of the thread, yes.

---

The thread seems like it's not being used otherwise, so what is it hurting?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Q.E.D.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Julie

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

---

Absolutely. This isn't a free-for-all.

---

There's a rule against it?

No, but we're not going to have a rule for every little thing that crops up. We've all seen where that leads to. However, I've made my request--note, please, that no warnings have been given--and it stands. You (and that's a general "you") need to get out of the mindset that if there's no rule against it, it's perfectly okay and we can't stop you. We'll tolerate a LOT here, but there are limits.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Q.E.D.

No, but we're not going to have a rule for every little thing that crops up. We've all seen where that leads to. However, I've made my request--note, please, that no warnings have been given--and it stands. You (and that's a general "you") need to get out of the mindset that if there's no rule against it, it's perfectly okay and we can't stop you. We'll tolerate a LOT here, but there are limits.

---

We're not talking cats and dogs living together. We're talking two people arguing in the Thunderdome. Is there something codified in the rules that makes this an obvious no-no? If so, please point me toward it so I can argue against it.

They're been carrying this argument through into several threads already, not just this one. Enough is enough. Several people throughout the various threads have complained about it. Nobody's saying they can't argue; people are just tired of them doing it in threads which have nothing to do with their mutual hardons for one another.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Julie

We're not talking cats and dogs living together. We're talking two people arguing in the Thunderdome. Is there something codified in the rules that makes this an obvious no-no? If so, please point me toward it so I can argue against it.

---

No, no, it's fine, it had gotten old.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

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'.

---

Has mozg said that Catholics have no place in society, or that Catholicism is a morally bankrupt institution which has no place in determining secular law? I don't think you're making this faulty analogy intentionally; I think you're just taking this a little too personally. Do you answer for the Pope?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

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.

---

Even if someone were to do that to my thread, I think they should absolutely be allowed to. It's just an opinion. If I caught the vapors every time someone expressed a distasteful opinion about my sexual orientation, I would run on fumes.

As for the derailing of those threads, I have the option of ignoring the person who says those things. In fact, if you happen to have watched me carefully in those thread, you'll notice that I make it a point to never talk to these people except in matters of specific public policy. I know that those people won't change their minds just because I tear up and scream "IT'S NOT FAIR!", just like you know mozg won't change hers.

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.

---

Who says it's incumbent on you to defend Z? You can always just ignore that topic and focus on what you're interested in hearing about.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Liberal

My drama days are over.

---

That's the funniest thing I've heard all year.

[quote=Hostile Dialect]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by "Boozahol Squid, P.I.":3d1hda3h

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'.

---

Has mozg said that Catholics have no place in society, or that Catholicism is a morally bankrupt institution which has no place in determining secular law? I don't think you're making this faulty analogy intentionally; I think you're just taking this a little too personally. Do you answer for the Pope?[/quote:3d1hda3h]

It wasn't supposed to be a direct analogy. The idea is that it's distracting to have someone interject irrelevant arguments in the middle of a discussion. That's one of the reasons we all make amusing half-apologies when we derail/hijack threads we're in. I find that it becomes much more distracting when those irrelevancies are specifically anethma to the viewpoints being discussed in the thread. Not that I mind opposing ideas, but when they're irrelevant opposing ideas, they really ought not be shared.

I feel that I should repeat I don't mind what mozg said. I just don't think it was appropriate of him to do so in a discussion about canonization.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Q.E.D.

No, but we're not going to have a rule for every little thing that crops up. We've all seen where that leads to. However, I've made my request--note, please, that no warnings have been given--and it stands. You (and that's a general "you") need to get out of the mindset that if there's no rule against it, it's perfectly okay and we can't stop you. We'll tolerate a LOT here, but there are limits.

---

Perhaps you are not cut out for this 'moderator' thing, because when something isn't against the rules, that does mean that you can go ahead and do that thing without being bitched at by an over protective nanny.

See, if it's not against the rules, you can 'request' that people stop, but they can also tell you to butt the fuck out.

Also, weren't you the one previously going on about how you were just going to concern yourself with technical sort of things and stay out of doing actual moderation? Because honestly, you should either do that or be a regular poster. Your moderating is for shit.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

Perhaps you are not cut out for this 'moderator' thing, because when something isn't against the rules, that does mean that you can go ahead and do that thing without being bitched at by an over protective nanny.

See, if it's not against the rules, you can 'request' that people stop, but they can also tell you to butt the fuck out.

---

Only if this board is going to be run by strict rules with all their weaknesses. It seems to me that the staff here is taking a softer, more flexible approach instead of spending all their time negotiating around loopholes, and I couldn't be happier about that.

I've started a thread in ADF about rules. I'd appreciate input.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Harlequin

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

Perhaps you are not cut out for this 'moderator' thing, because when something isn't against the rules, that does mean that you can go ahead and do that thing without being bitched at by an over protective nanny.

See, if it's not against the rules, you can 'request' that people stop, but they can also tell you to butt the fuck out.

---

Only if this board is going to be run by strict rules with all their weaknesses. It seems to me that the staff here is taking a softer, more flexible approach instead of spending all their time negotiating around loopholes, and I couldn't be happier about that.

---

That's what they said.

And then Q.E.D. over there went off the deep end blowing his little whistle. For someone who's supposedly (according to the Staff thread) dealing with technical issues, he sure is throwing his weight around and telling people how to interact quite a lot.

Frankly, I think he's headed in a direction that is anything but 'softer and more flexible.' Every five minutes there's some new infraction against a non-rule.

How is "please take this to a new thread" going off the deep end? And please, by all means, show us these infractions you say keep being added every five minutes. I'd love to see them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Q.E.D.

How is "please take this to a new thread" going off the deep end? And please, by all means, show us these infractions you say keep being added every five minutes. I'd love to see them.

---

You got all sandy-vagina because people dared to take the gloves off in Thunderdome after the discussion in the thread was already over. You started throwing your weight around as a moderator (something I thought you supposedly weren't going to do Mr. Technical Staff) rather than leaving it up to the actual moderator of Thunderdome and the posters themselves to handle.

Then you show up in this thread to bitch and moan like your BVDs are in a ball over how things that aren't forbidden aren't permitted either, and that people really need to heed your requests.

You're acting like a douchebag, QED. There's a reason you're the butt of so many Snarkpit jokes, and it's because you've always wanted the false illusion of power that comes with being a big time web forum moderator.

You write your posts as if you own the place, rather than CRSP, constantly saying what 'we' are going to have and what 'we' are not going to have as if your opinion is the official one.

Quite frankly, you look like the fucking valedictorian of the Ed Zotti School of Web Forum Mismanagement.

Here's my request to you: Either stop being a dickweed hall monitor or resign. Or better yet, if CRSP is out there, he should fire your ass.

It's a pity - but, I guess inevitable - that people brought all their old grudges along to this place.

Not so much that as there are always assholes who get their undies in a bunch over the prospect that they can't say anything they want at any time with no consequences. Hell, I dealt with them often enough in the Security field. Socially retarded morons who think they can yell and scream and prance around like maniacs because "GODDAMN IT, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO!" Anyone who objects or calls them on it is an asshole or pussy or some other expletive and it's all their fault for not being strong enough to deal with it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimera

Not so much that as there are always assholes who get their undies in a bunch over the prospect that they can't say anything they want at any time with no consequences. Hell, I dealt with them often enough in the Security field. Socially retarded morons who think they can yell and scream and prance around like maniacs because "GODDAMN IT, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO!" Anyone who objects or calls them on it is an asshole or pussy or some other expletive and it's all their fault for not being strong enough to deal with it.

---

Perhaps you don't belong in Thunderdome.

Perhaps, despite all the ranting about other people having the problem, its just that you can't deal with people.

Perhaps you both should get out. Get out

of

my

heart

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimera

Perhaps, despite all the ranting about other people having the problem, its just that you can't deal with people.

---

You're the one who got butthurt over the idea that there might actually be a place for no-holds-barred speech, which may be too hot for your little pussy self to handle.

I suggest you prance on back to Jibba Jabba where you won't have to see the yelling and screaming that you have such a major problem with. Whiny little panty waist pieces of shit like you have to go and take the fun away from others because you can't handle the fact that Thunderdome isn't the call center you work at, and people here don't have to be all nicey-nice.

Your bitching that we're not behaving in a professional manner like the people you have to deal with at your job should is fucking retarded. How the hell do you even live in the world if you can't tell the difference between a web forum and a job?

mozg, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but I think Chimera was referring to discussions in The Crucible, not Thunderdome, when he made that remark (post #168).

In other news, I notice that hatesfreedom has quite a modeling career going on.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NinetyWt

mozg, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but I think Chimera was referring to discussions in The Crucible, not Thunderdome, when he made that remark (post #168).

In other news, I notice that hatesfreedom has quite a modeling career going on.

---

It's not fair unless we get to see a photo of you too.

Nah, NinetyWt, I'm saying that mozg IS one of those raging, socially retarded assholes who thinks that he can say what he wants, when he wants, in whatever manner he wants, and the rest of the world is a bunch of...well, read his post to see what words he uses - but the result is always the same. Whiny bitches who can't control themselves and have to call other people names because everyone else doesn't simply roll over and tolerate their shit.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

Here's my request to you: Either stop being a dickweed hall monitor or resign. Or better yet, if CRSP is out there, he should fire your ass.

---

Since I don't have to worry about making nice anymore, here's mine to you: go fuck yourself raw, you worthless cunt.

@ Chimera: Oh. [Emily Litella voice] Nevermind. [/ELV]
But, mozg is a chick.


@ hatesfreedom: Sure!
I must say, that particular ferret must be a docile animal. I love the beret photo.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimera

Nah, NinetyWt, I'm saying that mozg IS one of those raging, socially retarded assholes who thinks that he can say what he wants, when he wants, in whatever manner he wants, and the rest of the world is a bunch of...well, read his post to see what words he uses - but the result is always the same. Whiny bitches who can't control themselves and have to call other people names because everyone else doesn't simply roll over and tolerate their shit. bold by mozg

---

Really? 'Whiny bitches' are the only ones who call people names?

What exactly is it when you say people are 'whiny bitches' if not calling people names?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Q.E.D.

Since I don't have to worry about making nice anymore, here's mine to you: go fuck yourself raw, you worthless cunt.

---

It must suck to have your dream come true for such a brief time before you fuck it up for yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

It must suck to have your dream come true for such a brief time before you fuck it up for yourself.

---

What "dream," you idiot? To moderate a messageboard? No, you stupid cow. If that was my dream I have both the financial and technical capability to start my own. I just came here to help. No, what sucks is that vindictive harpies like you have to go stirrting up shit even if it doesn't involve you at all.

I registered just to tell you QED, that anyone with the slightest intelligence and upbringing would not have made those comments about MsRobyn. Just because you can does not mean you must. A person with the slightest intelligence could have said what they intended without making an ass out of himself saying it.

Then you call mogz an idiot and a stupid cow for pointing out what a dolt you were for doing that? Mogz was correct.

This is my first and last post here unless the powers that exist here remove you from your staff position. You are not fit to serve. You have embarrassed this board, its posters, and yourself. You have proven the wisdom of the dope staff in denying you the coveted mod position you craved over there. They were certainly right.

You sir are a buffoon, a dolt, a child in a mans body. You do not deserve to serve here.

Hello to everyone else. I'll tell you who I am on the dope if I decide to hang around. As far as I'm concerned, there need to be a few immediate changes here before I make that commitment.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gyzmo

I registered just to tell you QED, that anyone with the slightest intelligence and upbringing would not have made those comments about MsRobyn. Just because you can does not mean you must. A person with the slightest intelligence could have said what they intended without making an ass out of himself saying it.

Then you call mogz an idiot and a stupid cow for pointing out what a dolt you were for doing that? Mogz was correct.

This is my first and last post here unless the powers that exist here remove you from your staff position. You are not fit to serve. You have embarrassed this board, its posters, and yourself. You have proven the wisdom of the dope staff in denying you the coveted mod position you craved over there. They were certainly right.

You sir are a buffoon, a dolt, a child in a mans body. You do not deserve to serve here.

Hello to everyone else. I'll tell you who I am on the dope if I decide to hang around. As far as I'm concerned, there need to be a few immediate changes here before I make that commitment.

---

Speaking of buffoons, can you show me where he said something about MsRobyn?

mogz is a big girl, she dishes it out and she can take it.

As to the last part, do you really think anyone cares what you think with the childlike post you made. You sound like a 6 year old child throwing a temper tantrum.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Q.E.D.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

It must suck to have your dream come true for such a brief time before you fuck it up for yourself.

---

What "dream," you idiot? To moderate a messageboard? No, you stupid cow.

---

Then why did you try to be a moderator at SDMB, sucking up constantly, junior-modding all over the place, and then get all butthurt and mod hateful when they rejected you?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Q.E.D

If that was my dream I have both the financial and technical capability to start my own.

---

But since you have the personality of a turd run over twice, you definitely don't have the capability to attract an audience.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Q.E.D.

I just came here to help.

---

Came here to help, and immediately started speaking as the voice in charge. Invoking the royal 'We' and telling everybody how things should be?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Q.E.D

No, what sucks is that vindictive harpies like you have to go stirrting up shit even if it doesn't involve you at all.

---

Sure, it doesn't involve me. It's not like I'm a member or anything. I couldn't possibly have anything of value to say about the direction of a community that I'm part of.

It couldn't be that you got slapped on the nose about 5 minutes after telling me that CRSP wanted you to apply your opinions as a moderator. No, that has nothing to do with why there's sand in your vagina.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

mogz is a big girl, she dishes it out and she can take it.

---

I think G.E.D. is going to end up taking more of it than I am. He can't Google his way out of this.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

[Speaking of buffoons, can you show me where he said something about MsRobyn?

---

Sure, apparently you're too obtuse to find it for yourself without help.

Quoting QED - Since I don't have to worry about making nice anymore, here's mine to you: go fuck yourself raw, you worthless cunt.
I'd post a link but I assume you can scroll up (^)a few posts to find it yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

mogz is a big girl, she dishes it out and she can take it.

---

I'm not defending mogz, just pointing out what a moron QED is for posting the claptrap he typically posts. How you can defend that is utterly amazing. Seriously, free speech aside, he's acting moronic.

But hey, if you want to defend QED go for it, I've got nothing invested here. If you want to join QED as the laughing stock of at least 3 other boards, if not the whole web, then have at it. You're off to a good start.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

As to the last part, do you really think anyone cares what you think with the childlike post you made. You sound like a 6 year old child throwing a temper tantrum.

---

Temper tantrum? As I said, I really don't care. I've made my point. You're stuck with QED and the reputation your board is acquiring due to his crap. I've got other choices. Now, here's your chance to play Ed and tell me to leave. Enjoy your denial.

QED was quoting mogz, not MsRobyn.

Reading is hard!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gyzmo

Temper tantrum? As I said, I really don't care. I've made my point. You're stuck with QED and the reputation your board is acquiring due to his crap. I've got other choices. Now, here's your chance to play Ed and tell me to leave. Enjoy your denial.

---

The post you think was pointed to MsRobyn was pointed to mogz. Read it one more time if you would.

When you effectively threaten to not participate unless a board does something first why do you think that would get a response you want anywhere? You might have missed it but mogz and others apparently made their case that Q.E.D. should not be moderating and he was instructed not to. Now you might not have seen it but at least mogz went about it in a reasonable way.

Why do you think the board will suffer if he continues to give CRSP help on the tech?

Why do you think I would tell you to leave? Are you really a doper? I don't think you know me at least if you are. That is actually refreshing. Enjoy the board as much as you want. I for one will accept criticism and you can expect it back if warranted or an apology if not.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff

QED was quoting mogz, not MsRobyn.

Reading is hard!

---

Yeah, apparently it is for both of us. He wasn't quoting, he was being a deliberate moron towards another poster who was correctly putting him back in his box.
I misread the MsRobyn in the title as the poster, (still not used to this layout) my bad, however, that changes little. Everything I said still applies to QED. Whether it was MsRobyn or mogz matters little as QED was way out of line. He's proven again that he's a .22 rimfire in a world of canons.

However, given that he's not allowed to mod anymore, things are looking up. Now, if you could only teach him a few manners.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Now you might not have seen it but at least mogz went about it in a reasonable way.

---

No, she didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Q.E.D.

Then why did you try to be a moderator at SDMB, sucking up constantly, junior-modding all over the place, and then get all butthurt and mod hateful when they rejected you?

---

---

You need to stop getting your "news" from the snarkpit. I know it's hard to tell from down there, but they're even more retarded than you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

I couldn't possibly have anything of value to say about the direction of a community that I'm part of.

---

Oh, please. Stop insulting everyone's intelligence by trying to claim this was anything other than a bizarre personal vendetta on your part. There are any number of ways you could have made yoru voice heard, but you chose to do so in the most hateful and venomous way possible.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Q.E.D.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

Then why did you try to be a moderator at SDMB, sucking up constantly, junior-modding all over the place, and then get all butthurt and mod hateful when they rejected you?

---

You need to stop getting your "news" from the snarkpit. I know it's hard to tell from down there, but they're even more retarded than you.

---

Oh come on. Ray Charles could have seen that you wanted to be a moderator over there, the way you constantly went about junior-modding when you weren't trying to be the king of GQ by copying and pasting from Google.

Something changed your tune about the mdoerators, and the most likely thing is that they rejected you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Q.E.D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

I couldn't possibly have anything of value to say about the direction of a community that I'm part of.

---

Oh, please. Stop insulting everyone's intelligence by trying to claim this was anything other than a bizarre personal vendetta on your part. There are any number of ways you could have made yoru voice heard, but you chose to do so in the most hateful and venomous way possible.

---

You're getting no less than you deserve for being a sanctimonious turd.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gyzmo

I registered just to tell you QED, that anyone with the slightest intelligence and upbringing would not have made those comments about MsRobyn. Just because you can does not mean you must. A person with the slightest intelligence could have said what they intended without making an ass out of himself saying it.

Then you call mogz an idiot and a stupid cow for pointing out what a dolt you were for doing that? Mogz was correct.

This is my first and last post here unless the powers that exist here remove you from your staff position. You are not fit to serve. You have embarrassed this board, its posters, and yourself. You have proven the wisdom of the dope staff in denying you the coveted mod position you craved over there. They were certainly right.

You sir are a buffoon, a dolt, a child in a mans body. You do not deserve to serve here.

Hello to everyone else. I'll tell you who I am on the dope if I decide to hang around. As far as I'm concerned, there need to be a few immediate changes here before I make that commitment.

---

Nah, Mogz is an idiot and a stupid cow ANYWAY. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gyzmo

He wasn't quoting, he was being a deliberate moron towards another poster who was correctly putting him back in his box.

---

Ah, so he wasn't quoting, merely using the quote function to isolate a specific bit of text and commenting upon it. I see that now.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Idle Thoughts

Nah, Mogz is an idiot and a stupid cow ANYWAY. :)

---

Who the fuck is mogz?

From the OP of this thread:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Julie

This isn't going to be all that vitriolic, so if you enjoy cagefights you'll have to start something yourself.

---

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Idle Thoughts

Nah, Mogz is an idiot and a stupid cow ANYWAY. :)

---

Who the fuck is mogz?

---

Poster known at the dope as catzseven.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrnalene

From the OP of this thread:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Julie

This isn't going to be all that vitriolic, so if you enjoy cagefights you'll have to start something yourself.

---

:lol:

---

It's a good thing that naivete is often painful but rarely fatal.

Dontcha love it when people come in, post about twice and then declare that there'd better be some changes before they consider staying?

Hubris? Ego?

No, I'm NOT saying "piss off", but I am saying that these people need to reconsider their own self-importance.

Well, but now we need Gyzmo to stick around long enough to remove the bat-mask and tell us his precious True Identity [sup:224hesei]TM[/sup:224hesei], and obviously everyone should defer to his every whim until he does.

Wow. Peanuthead gets fired, schooled and humiliated all in one day.

Maybe there's hope for this place after all. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leander

Wow. Peanuthead gets fired, schooled and humiliated all in one day.

Maybe there's hope for this place after all. :D

---

You're kinda creepy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Julie

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leander

Wow. Peanuthead gets fired, schooled and humiliated all in one day.

Maybe there's hope for this place after all. :D

---

You're kinda creepy.

---

Just another prat who takes his cue from the Snark Pit :roll: