Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.

[Joods]

But did you use your hands tho?

[c172]

Gangban?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I hope we got his consent before we banned him.

Nah.

Just fucked him without his consent . . .

hock:

He was asking for it, dressing like that. What did he expect?

[robvalue]

Ban everyone! I need blood!

[Pizza]

http://atheistforums.org/thread-32521-po...#pid913559
It's not like Nestor was naming names. We post stuff like this all the time about the stupid stuff Christian members say. Given that the hand waving away of expert opinion and the condescending attitude towards people who go along with experts I think it was deserved. You don't get to act like a big shot when most experts disagree with you.

[rexbeccarox]

http://atheistforums.org/thread-32521-po...#pid913559
It's not like Nestor was naming names. We post stuff like this all the time about the stupid stuff Christian members say. Given that the hand waving away of expert opinion and the condescending attitude towards people who go along with experts I think it was deserved. You don't get to act like a big shot when most experts disagree with you.

It's still calling out, and even worse-so since he didn't name names.  It's against the rules, plain and simple, and for good reason.  We easily got to quorum on this one.

[Cyberman]

It's not like Nestor was naming names.

That's kind of the point. Stripping the quotes from all context in that way is a dick move in itself. The only possible reasoning behind it is an attempt to circumvent the Rules, given that providing the names is a clear breach of them.

[Mudhammam]

It's not like Nestor was naming names.

That's kind of the point. Stripping the quotes from all context in that way is a dick move in itself. The only possible reasoning behind it is an attempt to circumvent the Rules, given that providing the names is a clear breach of them.

Maybe you can clarify a context in which the quotes I included would not be utterly moronic. Good luck with that. If I had made a thread called "Stupid things Christians say" or had singled out the comments of Christians or Muslims that are on here for saying some dumb shit, would it have caused any concern? Sounds to me like a double standard, and that certain members would rather avoid confronting their own bullshit while feeling free to disparage every other remark they disagree with it. And the fact that I didn't name names means any one of those statements could have been taken generically, because believe me, I'm sure you'll hear those stupid replies again in the future.
While we're on the subject of rules, how does the staff ignore the title of this thread? http://atheistforums.org/thread-32518.html
I'm pretty sure there's a rule against doing that. It took staff 5 minutes to ask me to change my title when I made a thread directed at bennyboy a few months back. Anyone want to state a reason for the lack of mod action in this case?

[Jackalope]

If I had made a thread called "Stupid things Christians say" or had singled out the comments of Christians or Muslims that are on here for saying some dumb shit, would it have caused any concern?

Absolutely.  Creating a thread for the purpose of ridiculing member(s) is a no-go.

As far as the other thread goes, I personally hadn't seen it.  It hadn't been reported.

[rexbeccarox]

If I had made a thread called "Stupid things Christians say" or had singled out the comments of Christians or Muslims that are on here for saying some dumb shit, would it have caused any concern?

Absolutely.  Creating a thread for the purpose of ridiculing member(s) is a no-go.

As far as the other thread goes, I personally hadn't seen it.  It hadn't been reported.

To add to this:  the reason the no-calling-out-rule exists is to prevent flaming, which is what you were doing by starting a thread to ridicule other members.  Summer wasn't flaming; she was posing a question to our known local history genius.  MAJOR difference.