Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to be a pain, but could you please help me understand why someone who deliberately makes others uncomfortable and slams an entire group is not banned, but I was banned for experimentally transferring language that made one group uncomfortable onto a different group, again experimentally?

I somehow feel that you are not too concerned about being a pain. The poster in question was upset by what many would agree is a clear contradiction if not outright hypocrisy: a man who has chosen a childless celebrate life criticizing other childless adults. The poster further listed other reasons that they did not hold that individual or the institution that he leads in very high esteem. The poster then concluded with, "I am done with Catholics". It was really only the last line that was problematic. Contrary to the OP of this thread and, apparently you, I don't see that entire post as being aimed at attacking Catholics but rather leveling criticisms at the Pope and Catholic Church as an institution.

In contrast, your post was purely an act of bad faith posting. You targeted an innocent party, were not engaging in any discussion relevant to the forum, and were essentially trolling.

An experiment is not “bad faith” and it is not “trolling.” I do research for a living, at a place you’ve heard of and respect. I do experiments all the time. I was demonstrating a double standard, and the demonstration was pretty effective.

You posted things you admittedly didn't believe solely to see what kind of response you could provoke. No matter what your intentions are, that's the definition of trolling.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to be a pain, but could you please help me understand why someone who deliberately makes others uncomfortable and slams an entire group is not banned, but I was banned for experimentally transferring language that made one group uncomfortable onto a different group, again experimentally?

I somehow feel that you are not too concerned about being a pain. The poster in question was upset by what many would agree is a clear contradiction if not outright hypocrisy: a man who has chosen a childless celebrate life criticizing other childless adults. The poster further listed other reasons that they did not hold that individual or the institution that he leads in very high esteem. The poster then concluded with, "I am done with Catholics". It was really only the last line that was problematic. Contrary to the OP of this thread and, apparently you, I don't see that entire post as being aimed at attacking Catholics but rather leveling criticisms at the Pope and Catholic Church as an institution.

In contrast, your post was purely an act of bad faith posting. You targeted an innocent party, were not engaging in any discussion relevant to the forum, and were essentially trolling.

An experiment is not “bad faith” and it is not “trolling.” I do research for a living, at a place you’ve heard of and respect. I do experiments all the time. I was demonstrating a double standard, and the demonstration was pretty effective.

Pew reports that 93% of trolls say that they aren't trolling.

Anonymous wrote:An experiment is not “bad faith” and it is not “trolling.” I do research for a living, at a place you’ve heard of and respect. I do experiments all the time. I was demonstrating a double standard, and the demonstration was pretty effective.

You should name the the place so that I would know not to take any of their research seriously. I cannot believe how obtuse you have been about this. In most cases, you simply cannot take a criticism about one religion and change the name of a religion and claim that the two things are equal. As has been pointed out by others in this thread, there are few to no counterparts to the Catholic Church as an institution. Religions overlap with culture, politics, and other aspects of societies. They are not easily interchangeable. Your "experiment" proved nothing and was completely worthless. The fact that you continue to believe otherwise does you no credit whatsoever.

You probably believe that your thread was deleted because you made criticisms of Muslims. In fact, it was deleted because it was not an attempt at discussion, but rather aimed at provoking a response. Posting to generate a response rather than valid discussion is practically the definition of trolling.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to be a pain, but could you please help me understand why someone who deliberately makes others uncomfortable and slams an entire group is not banned, but I was banned for experimentally transferring language that made one group uncomfortable onto a different group, again experimentally?

I somehow feel that you are not too concerned about being a pain. The poster in question was upset by what many would agree is a clear contradiction if not outright hypocrisy: a man who has chosen a childless celebrate life criticizing other childless adults. The poster further listed other reasons that they did not hold that individual or the institution that he leads in very high esteem. The poster then concluded with, "I am done with Catholics". It was really only the last line that was problematic. Contrary to the OP of this thread and, apparently you, I don't see that entire post as being aimed at attacking Catholics but rather leveling criticisms at the Pope and Catholic Church as an institution.

In contrast, your post was purely an act of bad faith posting. You targeted an innocent party, were not engaging in any discussion relevant to the forum, and were essentially trolling.

An experiment is not “bad faith” and it is not “trolling.” I do research for a living, at a place you’ve heard of and respect. I do experiments all the time. I was demonstrating a double standard, and the demonstration was pretty effective.

Anonymous wrote:I hate to be a pain, but could you please help me understand why someone who deliberately makes others uncomfortable and slams an entire group is not banned, but I was banned for experimentally transferring language that made one group uncomfortable onto a different group, again experimentally?

I somehow feel that you are not too concerned about being a pain. The poster in question was upset by what many would agree is a clear contradiction if not outright hypocrisy: a man who has chosen a childless celebrate life criticizing other childless adults. The poster further listed other reasons that they did not hold that individual or the institution that he leads in very high esteem. The poster then concluded with, "I am done with Catholics". It was really only the last line that was problematic. Contrary to the OP of this thread and, apparently you, I don't see that entire post as being aimed at attacking Catholics but rather leveling criticisms at the Pope and Catholic Church as an institution.

In contrast, your post was purely an act of bad faith posting. You targeted an innocent party, were not engaging in any discussion relevant to the forum, and were essentially trolling.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jeff, I appreciate that you removed the thread. Thank you.

Why? Why does it matter to you if a thread gets deleted or not? Are you trying to pretend there are no people out there who hold opinions you dislike?

Hateful posts make the objects of that hate uncomfortable and feel unwelcome. The issue is not why they were deleted, but why were they posted in the first place.

Did you ban that poster?

No.

I hate to be a pain, but could you please help me understand why someone who deliberately makes others uncomfortable and slams an entire group is not banned, but I was banned for experimentally transferring language that made one group uncomfortable onto a different group, again experimentally?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jeff, I appreciate that you removed the thread. Thank you.

Why? Why does it matter to you if a thread gets deleted or not? Are you trying to pretend there are no people out there who hold opinions you dislike?

Hateful posts make the objects of that hate uncomfortable and feel unwelcome. The issue is not why they were deleted, but why were they posted in the first place.

Did you ban that poster?

No.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jeff, I appreciate that you removed the thread. Thank you.

Why? Why does it matter to you if a thread gets deleted or not? Are you trying to pretend there are no people out there who hold opinions you dislike?

Hateful posts make the objects of that hate uncomfortable and feel unwelcome. The issue is not why they were deleted, but why were they posted in the first place.

Did you ban that poster?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jeff, I appreciate that you removed the thread. Thank you.

Why? Why does it matter to you if a thread gets deleted or not? Are you trying to pretend there are no people out there who hold opinions you dislike?

Hateful posts make the objects of that hate uncomfortable and feel unwelcome. The issue is not why they were deleted, but why were they posted in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jeff, I appreciate that you removed the thread. Thank you.

Why? Why does it matter to you if a thread gets deleted or not? Are you trying to pretend there are no people out there who hold opinions you dislike?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the atheist who agreed the emoji troll is annoying. You keep deliberately omitting the rest of my point, which is that the influx of religious trolls are equally annoying.

Pp here. I’d say Jeff should ban them all. But clearly they drive a lot of traffic and revenue so that’s not going to happen.

Based on this thread, I would say you are more annoying than the emoji troll, and that takes effort.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I look forward to your interpretation of this post which will likely involve several things that I did not actually write.

Come over to the atheist-bashing threads. Some posters (probably PP) routinely have "creative interpretations" that have zero basis on what anyone else has said - or reality for that matter.

How is it hard to misinterpret “Joseph was a rapist” or “Christianity is trash because God told the Israelites to kill the Hittites back in the deepest reaches of the Old Testament”? (I know, eye roll.) Or the Horus poster who pops up like a groundhog every December?

Here is an example of some nut job manufacturing fiction.
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/330/1020627.page#21506542

Here was my response pointing out all of random crap that PP pulled out of thin air:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/345/1020627.page#21507191


It happens all of the time. I guess some people aren’t bound to facts. Or reality.

OP here. Jeff, I appreciate that you removed the thread. Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I look forward to your interpretation of this post which will likely involve several things that I did not actually write.

Come over to the atheist-bashing threads. Some posters (probably PP) routinely have "creative interpretations" that have zero basis on what anyone else has said - or reality for that matter.

How is it hard to misinterpret “Joseph was a rapist” or “Christianity is trash because God told the Israelites to kill the Hittites back in the deepest reaches of the Old Testament”? (I know, eye roll.) Or the Horus poster who pops up like a groundhog every December?

jsteele wrote:I look forward to your interpretation of this post which will likely involve several things that I did not actually write.

Come over to the atheist-bashing threads. Some posters (probably PP) routinely have "creative interpretations" that have zero basis on what anyone else has said - or reality for that matter.