Reporting a troll?
Offline Is there any way to report a troll and have them disciplined? I being harassed by "Vastet" in one of the forums and twice now he's admitted to being a troll.
I don't care if he's banned or just told to stop being an asshole. And I am going to start ignoring him, because he's been asked to prove his accusations and refused, while admitting that he's trolling me. To me, that's pretty trollish behavior (and admitting to being a troll doesn't hurt my argument that he is one ...)
Since I don't believe in feeding the trolls (the poor dears -- LET THEM STARVE!), I don't see any further point in responding, but want to get my complaint "On The Record", as it were.
So ... mods?
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
- Login to post comments
Bend him over your knee and spank him
How about posting a link?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Sure!
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/66?page=13#comment-272437
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/66?page=13#comment-272442
Thanks for looking into this. He's the only poster I've had any kinds of problems with. Everyone else has been polite and respectful, for the most part, with Vastet being the sole exception.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
I thought it was going to go something like that. I was going to respond by telling you that I thought you were coming off as trollish but I didn't want to be too quick to judge. I find it ironic that Vastet said "you're a troll" in the following sentence of the piece you quote mined. I didn't know you before, but you're certainly on my radar now. My suggestions are that you have a good time interacting with the folks you deem "polite and respectful" and consider taking a little of what Vastet said to heart. Specifically these parts:
"If you'd grown the hell up I'd not have trolled you in the first place. But you're a troll. One who tries to use logic but falls to fallacy. One who has demonstrated a little knowledge of physics and biology, but not much. One who can't spell simple words like 'right' even though you have a spell checker. One who attacks the opposition instead of the argument. You act like a teenager going through puberty. I'll treat you like one until you desist. Or leave. I'll be happy either way.
Posting that and not noticing that he's right makes him even more right on just about every level... ironic. He's not a troll, he's giving you a hard time; he's being slightly sarcastic. Sarcasm is allowed here.
Vastet isn't going anywhere.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Ah, so this board is one of the ones where "We allow harassment of posters so long as it fits our agenda". Which sort of makes the name of this board a giant crock of shit.
I enjoy a good religious debate, especially one that helps to clarify misconceptions about theologies on both sides (check out some of my posts in other threads), but if a "free for all" is allowed just because someone is a theist, that's not really an honest debate. It's not even an honest non-debate. It's just a mutual admiration society.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
You're still doing the delusional thing.
It's a board where people are called out on their bullshit, you sir happen to have some.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
(And you may have missed the revelation that I'm of the female persuasion after Vastet told me to "suck dick". Is that how "The Rational Response Squad" suggests "bullshit" be called out? )
If you'd like to rehash some of my "bullshit", I'd be happy to do so. I try to maintain high standards for not having "bullshit" in religious debates. As I said, I've had few problems with other posters, which I think speaks highly of my "bullshit" free posting content. But this is, quite literally, your forum, so ... telling a woman to "suck dick" can be one of the "rules" you promote.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
I did a search for the word dick on that page and got nothing. Where is the post where you say you're a girl? Where is the post where he says suck dick?
If he said "suck dick" I do believe that to be a little harsh, however I need to see it in context to understand. And telling people to "suck dick" is not the rule of thumb for calling out bullshit.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
More than happy to oblige --
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/66?page=11#comment-271808
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/66?page=11#comment-272055
I missed this one --
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/66?page=12#comment-272181
If this is how you want to run your forum, again -- your forum, your rules. Allowing thugs to run things doesn't strike me as "Rational" or productive. If I was some Christian kid questioning my religious beliefs and the first Atheist I ran into was Vastet, I think I'd be more likely to believe my minister's sermons about "G-dless Atheists" and "Satanic Possession". I'd be half-tempted to suggest he's actually a Christian plant, here to make Atheists look bad.
I had mentioned a few pages prior that I'm a woman, so I consider his "go suck a dick kid" to be far worse than if it was the weird repressed homosexuality thing that men seem to have going where they tell each other to "suck dick". Men's sexual insecurities are men's problem -- G-d knows women have our own set of problems.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
I was going to stay out of this for a few reasons, but the decision has been handed down, and won't change after the context is viewed. So perhaps it'll help Furry to understand her own failure by pointing out a brief sequence of continuity and context. If not, as I suspect she doesn't really read responses to her and calls people who disagree with her all sorts of fun names instead of responding to arguments, at least I'm willing to try. This will take multiple posts to accomplish, obviously. I'll say when I'm done.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
My response to this assertion that atheists are unable to distinguish between christianity and theism in general was well put, and I stick by it in absence of either an apology or even a recognition of error.
My response to the claim atheists are illiterate was equally well put.
She goes on to answer questions in the OP that weren't directed at her religion in order to prove the questions aren't directed at theism in general (which is failure by definition), and basically repeats her fallacies, so lets skip ahead a bit.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
She really breaks down after I start naming fallacies she's employing. Instead of dealing with the actual fallacy, she suggests my understanding of logic is poor. I suspect that somewhere inside she recognised she was out of her league and had made errors, and decided to attack me directly in an attempt to defeat my arguments by pissing me off and discreditting me.
As we can see, this assertion is fallacious in and of itself. It may have been her first post saying she was a female as well, for Brians benefit.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Oh good, now I know she's a troll. She has failed to defend her arguments, so now she attacks my education, as if I'd let that go anywhere. Not that I was going to put much effort into it.
Apparently it wasn't enough to attack my educational merit, she must suggest I hate jews as well. And even that isn't enough for her.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Vastet, stop antagonizing the crazy cat lady...
So my age and education are the focalpoint of her attacks (and my use of a PS3, but that was just funny), with a suggestion of racism to boot. Never minding of course that her arguments are defeated even if I'm a 12 year old reborn Hitler in grade three.
It is at about this point I stated, amongst other things:
Yes, I knew she was female at this point. Though that had no bearing on my suggestion. The next quote demonstrates that she took no offence (though this topic proves she did, which pleases me to no end) and rather used it as a ramp for an attack on my sexuality.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I do congratulate her on the nice reversal here, especially since I had actually upset her with that suggestion. It was inspired. But doomed to fail, as I am quite comfortable in my sexuality.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
From what I've read so far, it seems to me that your "trolling" situation was provoked. By you. With condescending insults.
That would appear to be the meat. Her first post was on page 10, my response the same, should anyone desire to read through it all (it streches to page 14 at this time). I don't necessarily recommend doing so, it was hardly the most intellectual conversation, but if you've got some popcorn...
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
In the interest of fair play, rational discourse, and being the "bigger man" (though obviously the gender implied in the common phrase is inapplicable here), I'll extend an apology for those comments made by myself with the express intent of causing hurt to my opponent and not to her arguments.
The rest, however, I stand behind.
I also demand a similar apology for her comments made with the express intent of causing hurt to me instead of my arguments.
In this demand I request noone else say or do anything. I don't want an "I'm sorry cause I want to stick around" or "I'm sorry cause my friend/acquaintence/whatever said I should be". This is a test of Furry's common decency. My apology will not be retracted regardless, though I will have conclusive evidence with which to launch future attacks without remorse or apology should the path I expect her to take be taken.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I'm all read up here.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
I responded to you in the manner I did because you made this post --
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/66?page=10#comment-271440
I'd not made any negative comments towards you at that time.
To the extent that I simply should have ignored you because you're crude and vulgar, I should have ignored you. To the extent that I shouldn't have risen to the bait you offered in subsequent responses, I'm sorry for responding.
Your apology, as well as your remarks since your "apology" tells me that you're simply not the type of person that I wish to interact with. That's my choice, and there are a lot of people on the planet I ignore for myriad and sundry reasons.
If you'd like to try again and apologize specifically for post #507 in that thread, I'd be happy to bury the hatchet and move forward. That you've reserved the right to
tells me that it would be best if I simply ignored you if you can't see the relationship between post #507 and what came afterward. As I said, I shouldn't have taken the bait, and for that I apologize to the rest of the people here.
Should you attack me as you've threatened here, I will use this post as "conclusive proof" or whatever that you're a troll.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
I refuse, REFUSE to be herded! I find this notion of herding cats OFFENSIVE!
Why do furries want to herd me? What have I done to them?
I will have freedom for my peoples!
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
I was an operating system software architect in a previous career. It's said that managing computer programmers is a lot like herding cats.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
Try this
http://members.shaw.ca/gf3/circle-the-cat.html
That kitty is way smarter than me.
You have to interrupt its path off of the puzzle as far from the cat as possible so that you preserve your options as to where you put you next dark green spot. If you keep (N - 1) spaces between dark green spots, where N is the number of spaces between the cat and the edge, you should be able to trap the cat.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
Hah! I trapped the kitty! I am the kitty herder!
cage fighters. One more thing is required to make this business disappear.
I'll apologise for post 507. Will you apologise for post 503, which was the reason I started on you in the first place?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Aye, you drive a hard bargain, Mr. Vastet.
I'm not sure what you found offensive since it was a fairly dull and boring admonition that debaters be intimately familiar with their subject matter. The standard "Can G-d create a rock so big He can't lift it?" argument -- which covers "Why do people suffer?" and every other "Begging The Conclusion" fallacy argument -- really should be beneath anyone who's interested in SERIOUS and RIGOROUS debate. And I mean that regardless of subject matter.
I don't think you're stupid. I've read some of your more formalized arguments ("Know your enemy", being a good idea when entering a debate), and I think you're better than "get your head out of your ass". I also think you're better than "Arguments from a definition", which is also a form of "Begging the Conclusion" and "Appeal to Authority" fallacies.
However, "Cruising for a debate" isn't a "sin" of any sort in a forum where "Debate" is central to the purpose of the forum. Based on that, I'm going to stick with my earlier apology -- I shouldn't have engaged you after your post #507. I was looking for a debate, not an insult-fest, and I should have stayed on-purpose.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
You like?
Hehe very decorative. That kitty will never escape!
Meh, it's not that hard. I failed the first two times. But then, I figured out how to manipulate the cat so that I win pretty much every time.
Lol, nice.
By the way, your claim that we're biased in determining who to ban has some credibility, I think, but, oh well...I don't think Vastet would be banned even if he was a theist. We have a very high tolerance here. So yeah, if you don't like him, you'll just have to put up with it.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
vastet is my favorite member of this forum, although I could turn on him like a Doberman if he crossed me. and he is canadian.
Why the hair trigger, mate?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck