FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!

Collection of Dialogist "troll" posts No. 2




First major confrontation with Bikerman. And an excellent example of Bikerman making threats during an intense debate with someone he does not agree with in the Phil&Rel Forum. Note that these had been made well after the date of his announcement that Ocalhoun was the new Moderator of the Phil&Rel Forum. Date of this thread is January 2011 and his Announcement of Ocalhoun's appointment 2 December 2010 (refer copy of his Announcement at the bottom of this blog post). The bolding of lines in the first quoted post below is my own.

Thread: Questions for Christians

Bikerman wrote:
Oh you don't see any problem with that do you not?

You don't think this misrepresents?
Quote:
But according to Hitchens and Dawkins, and apparently you yourself, you also apparently posted them all too. Including this post, questioning aggressive atheism - and comparing it to an extremist faction of al-Qaeda (which I haven't done yet, but I may as well, seeing how the Pope is a pedophile and a rapist and you are now the author of this post as moderator of this forum).


Well, I beg to differ. I think it is the most blatant misrepresentation.

Actually now I read it again I'm actually quite surprised I didn't take further action at the time.

You can 'stand by' your comments until kingdom come but that won't make them correct.
I have no problem with people believing in religion as I have said numerous times. I will defend their right to do so, quite literally. I DO have problems when religion interferes with me in my working life or my home life, and thoise issues are entirely rational and evidenced (such as attempting to introduce religion into science classes). I will, of course, speak up about religion because that is how issues are deakt with in a democratic tolerant society and if you think that this makes me a bigot then you go right ahead and believe it - but don't repeat it here again because I consider it contravenes the TOS and is flame-bait.


Dialogist wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Oh you don't see any problem with that do you not?

You don't think this misrepresents?
Quote:
But according to Hitchens and Dawkins, and apparently you yourself, you also apparently posted them all too. Including this post, questioning aggressive atheism - and comparing it to an extremist faction of al-Qaeda (which I haven't done yet, but I may as well, seeing how the Pope is a pedophile and a rapist and you are now the author of this post as moderator of this forum).


Well, I beg to differ. I think it is the most blatant misrepresentation.

Actually now I read it again I'm actually quite surprised I didn't take further action at the time.

You can 'stand by' your comments until kingdom come but that won't make them correct.
I have no problem with people believing in religion as I have said numerous times. I will defend their right to do so, quite literally. I DO have problems when religion interferes with me in my working life or my home life, and thoise issues are entirely rational and evidenced (such as attempting to introduce religion into science classes). I will, of course, speak up about religion because that is how issues are deakt with in a democratic tolerant society and if you think that this makes me a bigot then you go right ahead and believe it - but don't repeat it here again because I consider it contravenes the TOS and is flame-bait.


Flame-bait? How on earth did you work that out? You provide comments which 'represent' me - accusing me of doing something I clearly did not do (no matter how you misinterpreted it) and apparently I have no right to defend myself? What you said I did is not what happened, as the text on the page proves. There is no misrepresentation intended nor even perceived by anyone other than yourself. There is no personal attack intended nor perceived by anyone other than yourself. Do you think I am trying to contravene the TOS? Do you think I would "stand by" something I knew I was plainly wrong to do - to a moderator of all people? Why would I do such a thing?

I cannot believe that you find anything in the moderator analogy that offends you. It's simply not there at all. There is nothing in any of those posts to be outraged about. It has been explained perfectly already - that my take in finding the pope implicit in those crimes is similar to blaming a boss for his workers actions (in my opinion) or anyone who is responsible for a large number of people. I have made this abundantly clear already. It can therefore, in no way, be taken as anything other than that which which was originally intended and explained and repeated. It is an analogy that doesn't even require you to be a part of it. The fact that it referred to you at all was merely just trying to demonstrate to you the extreme irrationality of pointing the finger - where it does not belong.

Finally, there is a clear distinction in disapproving in a thing a person believes in and disapproving of the person who believes in it. Also known as "hate the sin, not the sinner". Therefore there is nothing wrong with me judging an argument on the basis which it appears. The argument itself was addressed. Nobody called you anything. Christ Almighty.


This is a copy of Bikerman's notification of Ocalhoun's Appointment as Moderator of the Phil&Rel Forum on 2 December 2010:
Bikerman wrote:
As promised I can now say that I am handing over moderation of this forum to the new moderator - Ocalhoun.

Ocalhoun has just joined the team and will be taking the lead in moderation here in p&r from now on.
He tells me that he will be fairly hands-off - but I will leave him to set his own agenda and style of moderation rather than pre-empt him.

I will still be moderating if and when required, but it should not need to involve moderation decisions on postings, locking threads or other interventions with users in this forum (it will be more routine dealing with reports, spam-chasing etc), so my postings here will now be as Chris the poster not Bikerman the moderator.

I'd like to thank Ocalhoun publicly for agreeing to take on this role - it isn't easy but I have every confidence that he will do a great job.

Chris.




18 blog comments below

Quote:
excellent example of Bikerman making threats during an intense debate


I don't see any threats being made in any of the quotes. I'm really trying to see the threats being made, but I honestly don't see anything.

Until you show me where Bikerman made a threat (i.e. he's going to rip someones head off), your reports are still invalid and theirs nothing anyone can do about it.

I'm all for giving Bikerman a warning, IF you provide evidence to support a warning under. What you're quoting is not proof of Bikerman making any threats.

Quote:
but don't repeat it here again because I consider it contravenes the TOS and is flame-bait.

This is the closest thing I can find to a "threat" which is hardly a threat at all. He's telling someone what to do (as a moderator!) and he has every right to do so here. This is basically a verbal warning.

Now I'd like to highlight some of what Bikerman has written.

Quote:
As promised I can now say that I am handing over moderation of this forum to the new moderator - Ocalhoun.

Ocalhoun has just joined the team and will be taking the lead in moderation here in p&r from now on.
He tells me that he will be fairly hands-off - but I will leave him to set his own agenda and style of moderation rather than pre-empt him.

I will still be moderating if and when required, but it should not need to involve moderation decisions on postings, locking threads or other interventions with users in this forum (it will be more routine dealing with reports, spam-chasing etc), so my postings here will now be as Chris the poster not Bikerman the moderator.

I'd like to thank Ocalhoun publicly for agreeing to take on this role - it isn't easy but I have every confidence that he will do a great job.

Chris.


Bikerman (was?) attempting to stop moderation in the P&R forum, under his own decision. Nobody told Bikerman that he was to stop moderating (as far as I know). So surely if he decides he will stop moderating a specific area on the threads, he can, at his own will, decide to moderate a specific part of the forums again.

You, as a user, have no right to criticize his moderation. Especially publicly!

Also, have you read the rules?
Quote:
Back-seat moderating is not allowed. If you witness someone break a rule or you think (s)he did, please report the post or user.
Do not reply to the offending post or topic and attempt to handle the situation yourself. If you attempt to handle the situation yourself, a warning might be given.


Also see:
Quote:
The moderating team reserve the right to edit or remove any post at any time. The determination of what is construed as indecent, vulgar, spam, etc. as noted in these points is up to the Moderating Team and not the users.

This includes Bikerman, by the way.

And don't forget:
Quote:
The FriHost Moderating and Administrating Team reserves the right to ban anyone.
The FriHost Moderating and Administrating Team reserves the right to alter the rules anytime without prior Announcement or Warning.


In my opinion, you have been let off easy way too many times and you seem to be crossing the line as far as I'm concerned.

All of these blog posts, which looks like you're targeting the staff in general is way out of hand.
Ghost Rider103 on Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:09 pm
@Ghost Rider. With respect, if you can't see the threats and if you can't see the unfairness of a Moderator who is anti religion, who is actively promoting atheism at Frihost, who shows very clearly when he dislikes a person during the course of his debate, makes personal remarks about the people he is debating with and whom he does not like, and is very intently and intensely focused on winning arguments and having the last word always,

AT THE SAME TIME moderate the same debate, the same topic, the same discussion down to making value judgments of the other person,

then we definitely have a problem. There is a CLEAR conflict of interest here. And if you cannot see it. If the other Moderators can't see it after all of this effort. I'm lost here. All of it has been for nothing.

Bikerman has just locked one of my threads in this Section. This is the same person who claimed that he does not moderate issues in which he has a conflict.

I rest my case!
deanhills on Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:10 pm
I'm actually surprised that all of these similarly tiresome blog topics haven't been closed yet.
One or two would surely have been enough to make a point, but this multiple post whining and ranting is almost beyond belief now.

...oh and none of the quoted examples appear to clearly uphold your complaints on behalf of these 3rd parties. I also wonder, what are you trying to present yourself as now? 'Dean, defender of the meek' or something? I certainly wouldn't want you to advocate for me without my prior approval, and it is extremely unlikely that approval would ever be given if a request was made for it.

I must also say that creating multiple blog posts laced with accusations but no option for reply is a rather snake-like tactic in my opinion.
watersoul on Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:40 pm
Well Dean, I was worried perhaps that I may be totally blind to the issue you've been trying to point out.

So, I asked a few of the staff members before I responded to your blog post before I posted to see if they seen where, in the quotes you provided, Bikerman was threatening anyone.

All staff members I confronted (not Bikerman), including Bondings agreed with me and said they did not see Bikerman do anything wrong in the quotes you've provided.

Are you sure that you're using the correct words here Dean? "Threat" surely does not suit any part of the quotes from Bikerman.

I went out of my way to personally message Bondings on MSN to discuss the matter in a live chat. He agreed with pretty much everything I had to say to him.

So I'll say it again, your accusations here are irrelevant.

You're a great poster (most of the time). However you definitely have crossed the line here.

Quote:
Bikerman has just locked one of my threads in this Section. This is the same person who claimed that he does not moderate issues in which he has a conflict.

You're not in a position to complain about Bikerman closing your thread. You have no say in what Bikerman can and cannot do. He had every right to close your thread. Despite what he says he will try to avoid to moderate, Bondings promoted him to moderate the entire forums, therefore he has permission to close any topic, posted by whoever, posted wherever.

Quote:
I'm actually surprised that all of these similarly tiresome blog topics haven't been closed yet.
One or two would surely have been enough to make a point, but this multiple post whining and ranting is almost beyond belief now.

Don't worry, it's all being discussed and looked at carefully among the staff. Wink
Ghost Rider103 on Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:48 am
Dialogist wrote,
Quote:
... questioning aggressive atheism - and comparing it to an extremist faction of al-Qaeda ...
bikerman wrote.
Quote:
“don't repeat it here again”


Is it possible that aggressive atheism is comparable to an extremist faction such as al-Queda?
Question




It is a debate.
Bluedoll on Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:55 pm
Thanks Ghost Rider. I've also been fully informed by Bikerman in a PM below. So know when it is time to give up. What kept me going all of the years was thinking Bikerman was the odd one out amongst all of the "great" Moderators in the Staff Forum, particularly Bondings. Boy did I get it wrong there!

I meant every word I said in my Blogposts, even more so after I had worked through all of the evidence that I was asked to provide.

Given by what you have said, apparently with the blessing of Bondings, it is obviously pointless to continue with this discussion. Brick wall

This is my last post at Frihost.


Bikerman in a PM wrote:
Dean,
you need to know a couple of things:

a) You are now seriously pissing-off most of the staff Despite what you might think I don't 'control' what staff think or do. Actually, whether you believe it or not, I have been arguing in the staff forum against shutting you down - but the suggestion is being seriously discussed.

b) TidruG has just announced his intention to return, temporarily, to admin duties. He has asked immediately for an outline of these blog-postings and the history. TidruG's signature is 'I ban people' - and it isn't wrong. Once again, whether you believe it or not, I have refrained from sticking the boot in by giving him my account, but other staff have not been so restrained.

You may think that your position as a volume poster makes you safe - if so then you need to seriously rethink that, because I can tell you that it doesn't. Or maybe you think that your pm conversations with Steve make you safe - again you need to rethink that because Steve has made his position clear - he will support whatever decision staff make. Alternatively you may be looking for some martyr act of getting banned - in which case fine, carry on.

Despite what you think, I do not particularly want to see you booted, since you do make some reasonable postings. I won't pretend that I will cry any tears if it does happen, but neither will I campaign for it, and I have posted in the staff forum on several occasions to argue against it. However, your campaign against me is seriously rebounding and I think there is now a very real chance that the decision will be made, regardless of my opinion. Nobody on the staff sees any merit in your 'case' (or at least if any do they are keeping very quiet about it), and your open challenges of moderation decisions are not going down at all well with staff in general. I had hoped that locking one of your pentangelli threads might get the message across to you. I see, however, that you immediately used it to make another attack, which was foolish.
Anyway - as far as I'm concerned I'm done trying to bend-over backwards to be fair to you, and I will not be writing any more arguments about why you should not be dealt with. I will now just sit-back and watch developments. I thought it only fair, however, to let you know where you currently stand.

PS - I have posted a copy of this pm in the staff forum, so you should think very carefully before making any allegation that this represents any sort of threat or intimidation.
deanhills on Sat Nov 19, 2011 2:08 pm


Bit dramatic to leave the forums but I hope you find a suitable place on the internet where all religions are praised without question.
Maybe one day you'll even read back through these posts and realise that the 'religious intolerance' accusation was a bit silly.

Oh well, new chapters I guess, send us a link to the new forum Utopia you find, it could be amusing to read posts where conflicting religious folk pretend that their views do not deny each others Smile
watersoul on Sat Nov 19, 2011 4:18 pm
That's quite sad for me. Dean, Bluedoll, and Bikerman were the very reasons that I got hooked into Frihost. Dean somehow taught me the energy and love for Frihost. I also have somehow a connection with Bluedoll because we have the same birthday(silly for me to bring that up but it somehow added a supernatural feel for me).

On the other hand, Bikerman kept me interested and I can say I look up to him. All the things I've learned from him changed me exponentially for the past few months. When Epicurius(if I'm not mistaken) said that knowledge of oneself and all things can protect you from the burden of pain, that is so true.

Whether or not believing in God is rational or irrational, I would still be much inclined to be an Atheist. Rationality is in some way irrelevant for me, I'm emotionally inclined to be an atheist. If I found any evidence that proves God's existence, that would be very very painful for me. I'd be facing a difficult contender who's consistently toyed with my existence. In other words, i'd be terribly consumed with my anger.

Yet, I'm glad I found these forums because it gave me tremendous amount of comfort. Not only because I finally have found other atheists but primarily because of what I've learned so far.

Anyways, let's face the truth here. Atheists and Theists can never live together peacefully. I think, both will find hurting each other. Theists believe that turning their back from God is a sin, and for this sole reason they can't help but judge us. While Atheist will stick it up on theist's face which may consequently offend them for the obvious reasons. Though in this case, the theists are the losing end. Probably because they are outnumbered??? I dunno. Or maybe because they can't just put up against the harsh environment of debate where losing means you lose terribly??

So some people would say P&R was a mistake to begin with because it would consequently end with controversies like these. I don't think that, if Dean got banned because of P&R that it would be the first time in frihost. I've seen some older posts and I think somebody got already banned because of this. But personally, I'm thankful that P&R is there.

But I am quite disappointed also. For Dean to leave because of this, it seems he can't give up P&R. Despite all of this in P&R, it is still important for him. Could it be at some point, that he liked P&R differently from now? I'm guessing some people are missing and left the forums thus left it to be a Theist vs Atheist warzone.

Could it be that P&R is everything for Dean??? hmmm....
loremar on Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:39 pm
loremar wrote:
Anyways, let's face the truth here. Atheists and Theists can never live together peacefully. I think, both will find hurting each other. Theists believe that turning their back from God is a sin, and for this sole reason they can't help but judge us. While Atheist will stick it up on theist's face which may consequently offend them for the obvious reasons. Though in this case, the theists are the losing end. Probably because they are outnumbered??? I dunno. Or maybe because they can't just put up against the harsh environment of debate where losing means you lose terribly??

I can't say I can agree with this at all. It applies in some cases, but is by no means "true". Atheists and theists can, and do live together peacefully, and can, and do discuss theology without great difficulty and strife. It all comes down to the people involved.

Clearly, HERE there are issues with certain individuals and how they perceive one another and the discussion of theological questions, but, Frihost isn't exactly representative of how these topics are tackled in the greater world. Several of us here, even, discuss these topics without much difficulty, but, there's a lot of noise from those who can't; though they are few in number, they're loud and mask those who can.

So, yeah, main point is: theists and atheists only get into real problems when either or both side(s) let that one character define who they are and their argument. Most media and most people aren't that one dimensional.
Ankhanu on Sat Nov 19, 2011 9:29 pm
Just a few points to clarify:
Firstly, Dean was not banned - my pm was an attempt to remove the need for it to be even discussed - all he had to do was stop with the barrage of blog-attacks.
He chose not to and walked himself - he wasn't forced out.

Dean believes I have an atheist agenda to convert people, and he further believes anyone who cannot see that, or does not agree, is either part of the conspiracy or blind/stupid. With that sort of delusion there is no rational solution - a fact to which the blogs now bear testament. I've read through most of the postings describing my 'abuse'. A couple look a bit dodgy - until you go and read them in context of the thread concerned - and the rest look OK to me.

Yes, the p&r forum has changed - that is what a small number of theists don't like. When I first came to Frih, the p&r forum was majority theists, now it is probably majority atheist (though I'm never sure how many are lurking). I don't know how much of this is down to me (not much, I suspect), how much is down to times changing, and how much is down to other factors. Nor am I particularly concerned about it - though I would like to see some quality theist postings to get some decent debate going instead of 'praise him' postings.

Theist complaints revolve around 'lack of respect' and 'abuse'. I think I must have explained a hundred times that respect is not automatically due to any belief or position - who can say honestly that they 'respect' paedophilia or necrophilia? It follows that the call for respect is a partial and self-serving one issued by those who believe their position is 'special'.

There have been some (very few) threads that have turned abusive. I have crossed the line myself on a couple of occasions and later apologised when I realised, or it was pointed out. The great majority of such postings, however, have come from theists. I can understand that, to some extent. The theist is being challenged on important fundamental beliefs and that is often uncomfortable. People who are being challenged at that level can feel defensive and even lash-out - that should surprise nobody with any basic knowledge of psychology.

Specific complaints about my 'bias' moderation are more serious, but I'm not going to be forced to defend myself everytime someone wants to go on a rant. There is a reporting system and other staff DO look at it. If the report has any merit then it will be picked up by another mod, and probably sorted in the staff forum. Again, I've made a few mistakes in moderation and, after peer-review, have done my best to put them right.
Bikerman on Sat Nov 19, 2011 11:37 pm
Quote:
Dean believes I have an atheist agenda to convert people, and he further believes anyone who cannot see that, or does not agree, is either part of the conspiracy or blind/stupid. With that sort of delusion there is no rational solution - a fact to which the blogs now bear testament. I've read through most of the postings describing my 'abuse'. A couple look a bit dodgy - until you go and read them in context of the thread concerned - and the rest look OK to me.

Bikerman, if you do make points about what I believe, then I would be grateful if you don't misrepresent me. The part about the atheist agenda to convert people is dead right. I presented evidence for that too in the Atheist Evangelism blog post of mine. BUT, nowhere did I say it was a conspiracy. Nor that anyone who could not see it was blind/stupid. Those were your words entirely.

And before you misrepresent me more, let me set the record straight here. I have NOTHING against atheism. Atheists are entitled to think or believe whatever they want to, that was the point of this Religious Intolerance Category. My father was an atheist. Members of my closest family are atheists. But I have never had them working on me to change my beliefs, or mocking or ridiculing me with the objective of shaming me into changing what I believe in. Frihost was the first place where I've seen atheists behaving this way. THAT is what this Blog was about for me. Discuss and criticize religion all you want, but don't mock, don't belittle and don't talk down at people who have religious beliefs.

Furthermore, yes I was not banned from Frihost. Technically. But if the Moderators don't support what you say, and they say that Bondings, the owner is in agreement with them, then obviously the right thing to do is to step down. I have lots to offer and I love posting. I have no doubt there are other Forums that will be most happy to have me around.
deanhills on Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:42 am
Quote:
Bikerman, if you do make points about what I believe, then I would be grateful if you don't misrepresent me.
I didn't. You have made reference, many times, to the other mods being under my influence or control. That is essentially saying they are either blind/stupid - or at least more blind/stupid than you, because you see my plan and they don't - or, alternatively, they are going along with me in my 'scheme'. What other alternative is there?

You even make a similar comment in your 'last ever post' - before your last one.
Quote:
What kept me going all of the years was thinking Bikerman was the odd one out amongst all of the "great" Moderators in the Staff Forum, particularly Bondings. Boy did I get it wrong there!


I am not the slightest bit interested in changing your beliefs, nor have I ever tried. The only person who sees any 'evidence' in your postings is you - which really should tell you something (unless, of course, the posters here, as well as the staff, have fallen under my spell).

You love it when theists post absolute indefensible nonsense, but don't like it when I point out that it IS indefensible nonsense. You like it when theists get stuck in to me or other atheists but don't like it the other way around. You have no problem with theists evangelising, but when atheists speak their mind suddenly they are trying to convert the poor helpless Christians.

I didn't, by the way, say that Bondings agrees with me. I don't know if he does or not. I said that he will support staff decisions - because that is how he operates generally. I don't speak for Bondings or any other staff member, only myself. My pm was an attempt to halt the blizzard of back-seat moderation, accusations and similar - not because it was damaging me - I haven't removed or changed any of your 'evidence' (and I still see no evidence of religious intolerance, or persecution of theists) - but because it was irritating me and other staff, was in blatant breach of TOS, and was setting a very bad example for other posters.

I don't really give a hoot whether you stay or go - I was just making it clear that I've never tried to force you out, despite what you think - if I had you wouldn't be here. I didn't make any fuss when I caught you with a duplicate account - even though that would normally have been at least an AWIT - and I have frequently overlooked back-seat moderation, attacks on staff and other breaches of the TOS, where I would not have done for other users. Not only have I not victimised or picked on you, I have actually over-compensated - otherwise I would have closed your litany of blog complaints as soon as they appeared, as I should have done.

I have no doubt that some forums will welcome you with open arms. You post a lot, so why wouldn't they? Who knows, you might even get to moderate on another system - it seems to me that you've been wanting to be made mod here for sometime - though that IS interpretation and not based on anything specific, so it could be wrong.
If you *do* get to moderate on another board/system then I think the results will be interesting, and I wish you luck with it because I think you will need it.
Bikerman on Sun Nov 20, 2011 7:13 am
The words blind and stupid are yours Bikerman, entirely. And you have repeated them a second time. I will be grateful if you you would stop using those, particularly in this blog, as I have never used those words EVER in connection with anyone at Frihost. It is just not my style to do that.

And with regard to what I love to see theists posting, that seems to be a little redundant now. There aren't any theists left who are posting in the Phil&Rel Forum. Sadly so. There is your odd theist that ventures in and out, but your regulars are gone. The fact that my Blogs have generated more than a hundred posts for Frihost compared with very little in the Phil&Rel Forum should tell you something too. You do need theists to post in the Phil&Rel Forum. Problem is there is little tolerance for views from theists that are not presented exactly on Bikerman and Indi's terms. Nor do theists take kindly to your twisting their words either, as you have done with me so many times (refer first paragraph of this post for example). It has not been a good experience for me EVER to be in a debate with you, particularly in the Phil&Rel Forum. And I believe a number of other Frihosters have felt the same way. You and Indi do chase theists away Bikerman. The record speaks for itself.
deanhills on Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:03 am
OK, I'll rewrite it then:
'you think they are naive/gullible or conspirators.'

Is that better? It adds up to the same - you think that you have spotted some plan of mine, and that anyone who can't see it is being fooled by me in some way, or is 'in on it'. It is arrogant and patronising twaddle.

Your blogs have generated postings largely because of the innaccuracies and baseless accusations that most posters have been correcting, whilst Bluedoll posts her usual stuff just to really 'clarify' things. The only real question is whether to spamcan them or leave them....I'll let someone else decide that.
Bikerman on Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:42 am
The accusation of religious intolerance is certainly not baseless. I backed it up with evidence. And I stand by it. The record speaks for itself. There are no regular theists posting in the Phil&Rel Forum any longer. I have more than three years experience of intense posting here, and my experience in the Phil&Rel Forum has been agony from the start. I'm not the only one who have been through that experience. If it was easy for theists to post in the Phil&Rel Forum for theists, believe you me, you'd have seen other regular theist posters posting regularly in the Phil&Rel Forum. Me included. That to me is common sense.

Perhaps you could ask the following regular posters, who have all shown an interest in religion on the theist side, why they are not making regular posts in the Phil&Rel Forum?

Mrs Lycos
Loyal
Dennise
JMI
Jmlworld
Dementei
Jwellsy
Menino

Here is a list of trolls who are no longer around (ironic that only theists have been branded trolls so far, there are no atheist trolls):

deanhills (on his way out)
dialogist (no longer posting)
pentangeli (banned)
bluedoll (on her way out)

Then there are the one-timers who have dropped in for one session with you or Indi and then completely disappeared after a bloody nose following a "robust" debate. If you like more documentary evidence of this, I can look that up for you as well. And the unknown quantity, who must have taken one look at the Phil&Rel battle field and thought "No way, I'm out of here!"
deanhills on Sun Nov 20, 2011 1:05 pm
deanhills wrote:
deanhills (on his way out)
dialogist (no longer posting)
pentangeli (banned)
bluedoll (on her way out)

...good news day then Wink
watersoul on Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:13 pm
I'm not inclined to mourn the passing of any of those posters since few if any of them have added much to debate, other than sidetracks, stupid questions and obvious trolls.

In fact I regard this as somewhat of a vindication of the new policy.

Rest assured, if any atheist poster starts posting the sort of nonsense or abuse that has come from the above, then they will most certainly be tackled.

I thought you had made your last posting some while ago? Changed your mind?

PS - I just refreshed my memory of postings during my moderation. I'm still pretty happy with the decisions made and the general policy followed. Yes, theists have been given a 'hard time' - but so has pretty much everyone else. That is, actually, the idea - to subject posted assertions/claims to some critical analysis to see if they are credible. That is the basis of philosophy, science AND religion to some extent. True, in the case of religion, the 'evidence' proferred is often theological and therefore tautological, but if you seriously think that clerics don't rip-into each others views then you have never attended a theological debate.
You keep whining about different rules applying in the P&R forum. YES, they DO. Those rules have been discussed and are clearly articulated. They can be summarised as:
"If you post an assertion, it will be challenged, therefore be prepared for that."
Now I know that this does not apply in other forums, and that is fine and dandy. It DOES apply in the p&r forum. I don't need to justify WHY it applies - 'because I said so' will do nicely.*

If you don't like it then don't post. That is the advice given to anyone with a similar objection regardless of their religious faith or lack of it.

I don't see any irony in the fact that those trolling the forum have been theists. Do you actually know what irony means?

Am I surprised that the number of theist posters has reduced? Not really.
The evidence is clear - most of the theists who have posted in the p&r forum know very little about their professed religion. They are unprepared for the knowledgable and informed challenges they receive when they assert some particular religious point, and they quickly discover that their knowledge is seriously lacking. The response is often to whine about victimisation by an atheist clique and flounce out. There have been some (very few, I have to say) theists who have made reasonable points and defended them. The ensuing discussion has been illuminating and interesting.
I would love to see more of such posters, but I don't shed any tears over the religious evangelists who regard the forum as somewhere to prostelytise their particular religion and are shocked to learn that it isn't just accepted unquestioningly.

* In point of fact I consulted widely. I first raised it with staff, then threw it open for discussion in the forum, and only after that did I introduce the new policy.
Bikerman on Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:42 pm
"They are unprepared for the knowledgable and informed challenges they receive when they assert some particular religious point, and they quickly discover that their knowledge is seriously lacking".

Keep chanting that mantra to yourself, Mr Hitchen's personal photocopier.

Maybe somebody like Watersouless will post a wink under it. Make it allllll true.

Reading through these series of posts, looking at some of my postings, it's clear that I used to put a lot of effort or enthusiasm into trying to contribute to discussion and enlightenment around this place. I don't see any trolling. "Trolling" has always meant "Being better than us at religious arguments" anyway - let's be honest [insert Anakin wink].

I've only arrived at one conclusion from this, deanhills. It's not Bikerman to blame. He's just doing the only thing he knows how to do inside all of his two dimensions - discredit and defame. It's all my fault for even suffering that, but mainly for even being stupid enough to presume that any of it was even worthwhile. I could sit in a chair and punch myself in the face and get more intellectual stimulation out of it, rather than arguing with "child of seven" about "who has him thereafter".

I am a theist. I'm not a psychiatrist.
Dialogist on Sat Nov 26, 2011 5:36 pm



FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.