Wow.  I just heard that and I am actually pretty damn upset about what I heard.

 I'm torn between being upset about the content, or the waste of time it was.

Sapient, it took balls to do what you did. Plain and simple.

I'll start by pointing out that Laura is a c-nut.  I probably don't need to say much more than that, but I will anyway.

 Why is it when the religious are confronted or their ideas, they rip into the person doing the confronting on a personal level?  She was very hung up on your career, wasn't she?  Her god, when I heard it, I could almost picture the orange tweed basement sofa you *must* sleep on in her world. 

THAT'S what religion gets you, folks:  The ability to render judgement on someone you've never met in a manner absent of all facts.  I didn't hear you criticising her for her propoga...er, I mean, show.  She's awfully proud to be another marionette, isn't she?

She's never read the bible.  If she had, she would have been repulsed by the violence and underage softcore pornography.  Yet she feels that you must not have read it because you read ALL the books.  Point and preach on Sunday is *not* reading the bible.

 But to the average Christian it is.  I often wonder if they read their Danielle Steele novels the same way... 

 This Sunday we'll look at page 234, paragraph 21:

"As I ran my fingers thru his manly chest hair, I let them seductively creep towards his jeans.  He grabbed my neck and kissed me with such great force, that my hand was suddenly motivated to unbuckle his belt.  He threw me on the bed and unwrapped me like a present on his birthday."

 If only the bible were that stimulating.  And I don't mean stimulate to murder in the name of God, of course. 

You could have said something like the following to Trout before you banned him.

something like "Above all, we support rational thought and promote the advancement in rational thought through dialogue, in making decisions about religion, government, ethics, etc.
Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin may have arrived at their personal religious views rationally; they may have not. They never wrote anything about their personal spiritual journeys. However, their decision to kill millions of people makes me question the soundness of the way they arrived at their personal religious views. In fact, you can easily view the fascistic antireligious doctrines they imposed as a strategy to obtain and maintain power, which they in fact achieved. Without any higher authority except the government figurehead there is no way to question said figurehead's authority. Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot were not proponents of rational thought and dialogue. In fact, this rational intellectual tradition, (lead by either an athiest or a religious person) would have been viewed as a threat to their authority just the same as a religious doctrine. Education in the Soviet Union was under strict ideological control. Hitler (said by some to be an athiest; I have no idea) killed intellectuals. Pol Pot also targeted intellectuals, buddhist monks, and people who appeared to be intelligent- like people with glasses(!), among other population groups in Cambodia (without regard to whether these people were athiest or not). These people were a challenge to their power. So, while Pol Pot, etc. may have arrived at his personal religious views rationally, the manner with which they indoctrinated their subjects, obtained power and destroyed life does not reflect a rational approach to government; Pot, Stalin, etc. did not appeal to rationality in their decision to kill millions; their history is a reflection of why such an approach is so dangerous. 'The slaughter of millions done by atheists' is decidedly not in harmony with a rational worldview."

Sorry for misrepresenting rational responders if i did;

On a different note, I was disappointed that Trout was banned, even if he was trolling. (I learned a new word!) I fear this will have implications for openness of discussion on a site which promotes rational dialogue. I don't know if his actions were consistent with the definition of trolling, perhaps he was just thickheaded and could not understand the opposing arguments, perhaps he was intentionally causing disruption.  But of course, you would probably know this better than me. I'm new to forum cites, so I don't have a clue. Personally , if I was annoyed with the course of discussion I would have left the forum alone, but I know a moderator has to play a different role.


Whether or not he was intentionally causing disruption, I have questions about this course of action so maybe I can better understand this decision; is there a "banning policy" written somewhere? was Trout referred to this policy and showed his offences specifically before he was banned?

Also if these questions belong on another forum/ were already addressed, sorry/please direct me to where they're addressed.
thanks.

I was disappointed, and I have the same fears.  A mods job is never easy.  As you can see from the site however there are quite a few theists here, many that are far more outlandish than Trout, but that don't break down into a zone of trolling.  We don't want to have a reputation of banning people either, which is why I think the number is at 4 people that have been banned from the site total. 

You should know, I said goodbye to him in the most courteous way I could, under the circumstances. 

He could easily just be thick headed, however he had a history at the InfidelGuy.com community.  We get people who have been banned from other communities that we are close with from time to time and to this point every one of those people has gotten a fresh start.  However they had strikes on their record in our mod minds, Trout was given quite some time and eased himself in.  However he stooped to his old trolling ways here and had to go (partly on his old record).

Yes, as a poster it's your role to post, the mods however need to read everything and make sure that an environment condusive to open discussion can occur. 

Here are the rules. (up top menu bar) 

He was asked to move on several times, however he should've known better based on past experiences.  We don't have a policy to warn before a ban.  Sometimes we'll warn, sometimes time out, othertimes it's just ban.  In this case several mods conferred to simply ban.

ahem, is this thing on??? what is all the lip flapping about?  I put the internet aside for just one little holiday and damn, a lot happened...is there a transcript of this exchange?

Check out the picture on the desk on the right. Stewart with the kids from "Different Strokes".

I also liked him pointing out that the anchor was wearing a cross.

But I did not know, but it doesn't surprise me, that the founders had no intent on treating December 25th as a special day. 67 years after the ink dried, the Congress held session.

The idiots who claim that the settlers  came here for religious freedom. NO they came here to set up their own sectarian clubs. People like Paine and Jefferson and the founders set up a government to put a leash on the tribalism they were surrounded by at the time.

I simply think once the new car smell wore off the Revolution, the citizens didn't really understand the freedom the founders set up for them.

The war is not on religious freedom. The war is against absurd claims AND to keep government neutral.