There's a rather significant difference between polite criticism of an idea or argument and personal abuse. Even impolite criticism (of which the quotation above is hardly an example) is in a different category from personal abuse. My own feeling is that the moderators should just "let it ride" as long as people refrain from serious personal abuse and vulgar language.
I don't think you understand what Nomad is complaining about. It's one thing to have any old poster call you an idiot; it's quite another to be warned by a moderator. The latter involves an implied threat to ban you from the board if you keep doing - well, whatever it was that the moderator didn't like. In the latter case it's perfectly appropriate to ask what are the rules, and whether they are being applied impartially.

What thread was Nomad referring to?

Michael

Never mind, I found it. Still already responded in that thread. The issue was discussed, Still responded with a reasonable comment, so there is no reason for the new thread here, except Nomad attempting to stir up trouble.

BTW, BD, Nomad has compared people in this forum to creationists (funny) and holocaust deniers (not funny). This very thread contains a personal insult from him. Forunately he is wont to foul up gloriously (like when he accused me of having "weak English skills" and then promptly misspelled two words while making that argument) so normally he ends up struggling to clean the yolk and albumin off his face. No biggie.

Furthermore, Still didn't threaten action, he made a plea for peace. The moderator is supposed to do that.

• It is very unbecoming to call others or their arguments "stupid" and "idiotic." Let's all take a deep breath please. Thanks.

As you can see, Still's message was generally addressed, Nomad decided it was personally intended. Why do you think that is?

Michael

Now, this is quaint. Big Bad Nomad is stirring up trouble for the poor helpless sceptics who just want to have rational discussions on these boards. Tell the masses that they have nothing to fear Michael, they have you to protect them.

Hmm... now if I used the devastating arguments of the sceptics on these boards, I guess I would just call you a dumbo, moron, asshole and then tell you to fuck off right?

On the other hand, I think I will simply continue to point out the laughers and logical fallacies of many of the sceptics on these boards. I consider the behaviour I listed above to be unacceptable, but now recognize that when it is directed at Christians, it is considered to be acceptable, and at the same time, if a Christian asks about this kind of behaviour, the moderators here are going to jump all over him.

No biggie.

This actually brings me to my follow up question:

What prompted him to use my post to make that point? And what is the position of the moderators here on this question? Will anyone be given a "plea for peace" if they tell another to fuck off, or slanders someone? Just curious.

As you can see from my original question, I only wish to know the general protocol for posting on these boards. If I had known that this would cause so much alarm amongst the poor helpless sceptics, necessitating the intervention of a couple of moderators on this thread, then I would have done it much sooner.

Don't worry Michael, I promise to be good. My only question really is what is, and what is not acceptable in a post. If any of the moderators of the SecWeb Boards cares to address this question in Still's place, I will be content.

Thanks,

Nomad

Nomad, do I get to hold you responsible for the Crusades or the Inquisition? Do I get to hold you responsible for all of those Christians who refuse medical attention for their children? How about those Christians who smother and kill children while trying to perform exorcisms? Or, how about those Christians who are members of the KKK?

Then why do I get lumped in with all those people who have called you names? Why is it a condemnation of all skeptics and athiests on this board when some act immature?

Get off your high horse. This kind of bigotry is unbecomming of you.

(If you couldn't tell, I'm offended at what you said.)

First, I did not say all sceptics sentinel, and your reading this into my post is a bit disigenuous. If you have kept up with any of the threads that I, or Layman, or Polycarp, or SecWebLurker participate on you will see plenty of examples of the kind of posts that I talked about in my post.

Out of all of that, James elected to choose my statement that rodahi's idea that no one redates the Gospels as being stupid and idiotic. Since he is not here to speak for himself, I cannot know why James chose my particular post in which to raise this topic, but seeing as matters have not improved, and we continue to be insulted and attacked ad hominem style regularily, I am left to wonder, what is the line? Is there one? Is there a point at which a theist or sceptic will be cautioned yet again, and how would we know when we have reached that point?

When Howard was temporarily banned for making a joke about threatening Bill, we received some insight into what cannot be tolerated on these boards. Death threats, quite rightly, are out.

On the other hand, when do insults cross the line? Do they ever do this? Is any standard going to be given?

Bigotry? Are you serious? Give me a break. YOU chose to read into my statment and make it much broader than it actually was. Sceptics have done exactly the things that I have said in my post, and neither of us has to look hard to find the examples.

So here is my questions for the moderators:

Will others be chastised when inappropriate insults are offered in a post? If so, what is the line?

Some guidelines would be appreciated.

Nomad

Nomad,

I don't quite understand you. Since you have labeled ideas "holocaust denial" and since you constantly insult and patronize the people who respond to your posts, I do not see what you are complaining about.

Insults regularly fly back and forth, see posts by Metacrock or Theo the Logian or yourself. Most moderators will not protect those who dish out insults if someone picks on them. Why should they? I have intervened on Layman's behalf, because Layman usually sinks no further than sarcasm, and avoids outright insult. Just today I closed one insulting thread over in the OPD forum, because it was way over the line (made by Zengi; I forgot the name). I have no idea why James pleaded for peace at that time; you'll have to ask him.

The bounds are pretty robust; we try to keep them that way. If we came down too hard, it would be difficult to execute our duties, and nobody would bother to post. Exactly how many times have you been called on your behavior?

BTW, all you had to do was demonstrate that Rodahi's idea was "idiotic" by posting a long list of academics who support your views. So why didn't you? I have noticed over the months that when faced with your own incapacity, you either flee, insult other participants in the thread (and then flee), or go whining to someone. I assumed that this posting of yours was a mere tactical diversion, since you have no way to respond to Rodahi on Kim.

I mean, all you have to do is demonstrate that you are right and Rodahi is wrong. There would be no need for this conversation otherwise.

Michael

I think this qualifies as understatement of the day award.

Whoa there big fella. I have compared the theory of Jesus was a myth to holocaust denial and explained why. This is a big difference from merely labelling one thing as being something else.

I am not complaining so much as I am asking for what the standard happens to be on these boards. Layman, Meta, SecWebLurker, Polycarp and I have had to regularily put up with all the bullshit the sceptics here can muster. No worries. But then James pops out of nowhere and chastises me for making a very true (if insulting) statement, I am left wonder. What is the standard here?

From my point of view, they should not. I can live with anything anyone wishes to throw at me. My concern is when someone who helps to run Infidels.org steps in and tells me that I am being out of line, when the comparison of what I have said to what has been said against me (and others) is not even close.

Is it actually this hard for you to understand this point BTW?

Once. By James. Now I want to know why.

Since rodahi's statement was an unqualified NO ONE redates the Gospels and books of the New Testament except me, and that a discussion about such things was a DEAD issue, why must the list be long?

Serious question, if I post a listing of respected scholars that redate the Gospels to an earlier period than the traditional datings commonly offered, will you agree that rodahi's statement was stupid? If your answer is yes, then I will grant your request. If it is no, then you have learned why I often do not bother pointing out the obvious on these Boards.

Poor Michael. Still smarting over my making fun of you for calling Christians Satan Worshippers?

As I have said before, no one is forced to respond to me or my posts. I am willing to engage in dialogue with almost anyone, and when I have chosen not to do so, I usually tell them exactly why I have stopped.

I guess you are not keeping up on that thread. Perhaps you could summarize the arguments being used against Kim, since rodahi has yet to offer them.

In any event, thanks for the partial answer. I will wait for James to respond to the other question.

Nomad

Nomad:

You have been called on your behaviour once before this, AFAIK. For the life of me, I don't remember the thread. But it disintergrated rapidly into a flame fest.

Single Dad, do you remember it? I think you were flamed royally in it...

Produce the thread jess, or withdraw the charge. I believe that the thread you are thinking about was about Meta, not me, and I was not called for my behaviour, nor was I the one that issued an apology (nor did Meta). If it is another thread you are thinking about, then link to it.

Nomad