As if we didn't need more proof that thetards are all hypocrites,
completely lacking in the capability of self-evaluation, completely
lacking in the ability to look in the mirror and make an assessment,
completely lacking period. Oh, well...
Digging through my own e-mail, I wrote this to Trance and Dag a few
days ago:
"Woodbridge is kind of the atheist Brock Organ, but I enjoy how much
this annoys the theists."
Just a segment from that post, which was a long explanation for why we
don't ban Brock:
"Is Brock better than a spammer? Of course not. Hit-and-run posters
are routinely better posters than Brock Organ. There are porn ads that
rival his posts in relevance and overall content. All of this makes
his bitching all the more ironic, because if we were to start banning
for content that the majority of the group members found least
acceptable, he would probably be the first to go. But Brock shows
evidence of having read posts and (technically) responds to them,
which means the two ways by which we definitively determine a spammer
do not apply to him. He is _like_ a spammer in every conceivable way,
but there's no consistent way we can say 'This is why we're banning
Brock Organ, and the same rules go for everybody' because what he's
doing is really dodging points and posting irrelevancies, and lots of
posters do that.
Sadder still, most of the theists here would defend the content of
Brock Organ's posts. Maybe all of them. This just goes to show that
theists will not be appropriately critical to other theists, which
proves the argument that they're all partially responsible for the
consequences of some of them. If there was such a thing as a
'rational
theist', the least they would do is join us in bashing Brock's
disingenuous gibberish."
rappoccio, same thread:
"I'm in agreement with Dev. Brock is of course no BETTER than a
spammer, but honestly, he follows the technicalities of replying to
other threads (even if the replies are devoid of all content). I also
agree with the fact that if this WERE to become a moderated group
where only relevant material was allowed, Brock would have hit the
chopping block long ago, along with Keith. So ultimately they should
be happy that there is no banning but spam."
Anyway, the background there is provided: Brock is only different from
a spammer for technical reasons, but for those technical reasons we
have to keep him, according to the moderator Dev who abuses his powers
in ways too terrible to be imagined despite being entirely imaginary,
and who hates Brock. But Brock has never really debated: anyone, as
has been exposed in countless Brock parodies, can just repeat his
ludicrous garbage to dodge any point ever and that's what he does.
Woodbridge says "prove it" or posts a link to a list of theist rules
for debate. Brock says "or not. :)" or posts a link to Wiki or the
Westminster Confession.
And anyway again, the punchline--once again, Dev is proven absolutely
right about thetards.
So, Chris writes:
THREAD: "Moderators: Aren't out_and_out spammers and ne're do wells
supposed to be banned?"
"So tell me how Woodbridge doesn't meet the criteria. And I never
thought I'd live to see a thread when Brock didn't quote the
Confession LOL LOL LOL (reference thread entitled 'Bible fudged to
eliminate contradictions'. Not a once!!"
So...evidently because two pseudo-spammers cancelled each other out,
and Brock was less of a spammer, we should ban the newbie atheist for
doing the atheist version of what a theist has been doing for
_MONTHS_.
Fuck you, thetards. You haven't earned respect. The mods have been
discussing this: you want to ban deliberately repetitive, thoughtless
posting as "de facto spam", fine--we can put it to a vote if this
frankly subjective measure is to be put into place (which will, of
course, require more discretion and calling the shots on our part)--
but if Woodbridge goes, Brock goes, because their posting styles are
practically _IDENTICAL_ aside from the fact that Woodbridge doesn't
have delusions of a psychotic sky monster. There is absolutely no
argument for why Brock participates in discussions more actively than
Woodbridge--_none_--or even tries.
You worthless fucktards should be ashamed of your hypocrisy. And I
know that every sane person on this group agrees with me on this.
Extremely well put Dev and I agree with all of this.
Here is my email response when I was asked my opinion on whether I though
Woodbridge should be banned:
Trance said:
This site has put up with Brock for a couple of years now without warning
him and without a single complaint from any theists.
Now that the theists have to take their own medicine they're whining.
I really don't think we need to let them bully us into acting on Woodbridge.
If anyone complains just ask them why they've never complained about Brock
and make it clear to them that whatever happens to Woodbridge is going to
happen to Brock.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> As if we didn't need more proof that thetards are all hypocrites,
> completely lacking in the capability of self-evaluation, completely
> lacking in the ability to look in the mirror and make an assessment,
> completely lacking period. Oh, well...
> Digging through my own e-mail, I wrote this to Trance and Dag a few
> days ago:
> "Woodbridge is kind of the atheist Brock Organ, but I enjoy how much
> this annoys the theists."
> Just a segment from that post, which was a long explanation for why we
> don't ban Brock:
> "Is Brock better than a spammer? Of course not. Hit-and-run posters
> are routinely better posters than Brock Organ. There are porn ads that
> rival his posts in relevance and overall content. All of this makes
> his bitching all the more ironic, because if we were to start banning
> for content that the majority of the group members found least
> acceptable, he would probably be the first to go. But Brock shows
> evidence of having read posts and (technically) responds to them,
> which means the two ways by which we definitively determine a spammer
> do not apply to him. He is _like_ a spammer in every conceivable way,
> but there's no consistent way we can say 'This is why we're banning
> Brock Organ, and the same rules go for everybody' because what he's
> doing is really dodging points and posting irrelevancies, and lots of
> posters do that.
> Sadder still, most of the theists here would defend the content of
> Brock Organ's posts. Maybe all of them. This just goes to show that
> theists will not be appropriately critical to other theists, which
> proves the argument that they're all partially responsible for the
> consequences of some of them. If there was such a thing as a
> 'rational
> theist', the least they would do is join us in bashing Brock's
> disingenuous gibberish."
> rappoccio, same thread:
> "I'm in agreement with Dev. Brock is of course no BETTER than a
> spammer, but honestly, he follows the technicalities of replying to
> other threads (even if the replies are devoid of all content). I also
> agree with the fact that if this WERE to become a moderated group
> where only relevant material was allowed, Brock would have hit the
> chopping block long ago, along with Keith. So ultimately they should
> be happy that there is no banning but spam."
> Anyway, the background there is provided: Brock is only different from
> a spammer for technical reasons, but for those technical reasons we
> have to keep him, according to the moderator Dev who abuses his powers
> in ways too terrible to be imagined despite being entirely imaginary,
> and who hates Brock. But Brock has never really debated: anyone, as
> has been exposed in countless Brock parodies, can just repeat his
> ludicrous garbage to dodge any point ever and that's what he does.
> Woodbridge says "prove it" or posts a link to a list of theist rules
> for debate. Brock says "or not. :)" or posts a link to Wiki or the
> Westminster Confession.
> And anyway again, the punchline--once again, Dev is proven absolutely
> right about thetards.
> So, Chris writes:
> THREAD: "Moderators: Aren't out_and_out spammers and ne're do wells
> supposed to be banned?"
> "So tell me how Woodbridge doesn't meet the criteria. And I never
> thought I'd live to see a thread when Brock didn't quote the
> Confession LOL LOL LOL (reference thread entitled 'Bible fudged to
> eliminate contradictions'. Not a once!!"
> So...evidently because two pseudo-spammers cancelled each other out,
> and Brock was less of a spammer, we should ban the newbie atheist for
> doing the atheist version of what a theist has been doing for
> _MONTHS_.
> Fuck you, thetards. You haven't earned respect. The mods have been
> discussing this: you want to ban deliberately repetitive, thoughtless
> posting as "de facto spam", fine--we can put it to a vote if this
> frankly subjective measure is to be put into place (which will, of
> course, require more discretion and calling the shots on our part)--
> but if Woodbridge goes, Brock goes, because their posting styles are
> practically _IDENTICAL_ aside from the fact that Woodbridge doesn't
> have delusions of a psychotic sky monster. There is absolutely no
> argument for why Brock participates in discussions more actively than
> Woodbridge--_none_--or even tries.
> You worthless fucktards should be ashamed of your hypocrisy. And I
> know that every sane person on this group agrees with me on this.
-- Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
"Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and
assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech
to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US
Supreme Court Justice
I am not a spammer. I dont want to be banned because I post a lot to
Borgan. Borgan does not answer many questions again and again and also
does lot of repeatation. I answer questions to Christians and also I
ask questions to other Christians and do not post lot to them. Many
Christians are hypocrites calling my spamming when Borgan does more.
Christian LimaToo changed my posting yesterday and he was not
banned.Why?
I only want to stay to meet challenge of FlyFisher son of minister.
Christian FlyFisher says he can prove God. I said prove it. He is
hiding after Christian Palin lost and her prayer became false.
On Nov 13, 5:12 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> As if we didn't need more proof that thetards are all hypocrites,
> completely lacking in the capability of self-evaluation, completely
> lacking in the ability to look in the mirror and make an assessment,
> completely lacking period. Oh, well...
> Digging through my own e-mail, I wrote this to Trance and Dag a few
> days ago:
> "Woodbridge is kind of the atheist Brock Organ, but I enjoy how much
> this annoys the theists."
> Just a segment from that post, which was a long explanation for why we
> don't ban Brock:
> "Is Brock better than a spammer? Of course not. Hit-and-run posters
> are routinely better posters than Brock Organ. There are porn ads that
> rival his posts in relevance and overall content. All of this makes
> his bitching all the more ironic, because if we were to start banning
> for content that the majority of the group members found least
> acceptable, he would probably be the first to go. But Brock shows
> evidence of having read posts and (technically) responds to them,
> which means the two ways by which we definitively determine a spammer
> do not apply to him. He is _like_ a spammer in every conceivable way,
> but there's no consistent way we can say 'This is why we're banning
> Brock Organ, and the same rules go for everybody' because what he's
> doing is really dodging points and posting irrelevancies, and lots of
> posters do that.
> Sadder still, most of the theists here would defend the content of
> Brock Organ's posts. Maybe all of them. This just goes to show that
> theists will not be appropriately critical to other theists, which
> proves the argument that they're all partially responsible for the
> consequences of some of them. If there was such a thing as a
> 'rational
> theist', the least they would do is join us in bashing Brock's
> disingenuous gibberish."
> rappoccio, same thread:
> "I'm in agreement with Dev. Brock is of course no BETTER than a
> spammer, but honestly, he follows the technicalities of replying to
> other threads (even if the replies are devoid of all content). I also
> agree with the fact that if this WERE to become a moderated group
> where only relevant material was allowed, Brock would have hit the
> chopping block long ago, along with Keith. So ultimately they should
> be happy that there is no banning but spam."
> Anyway, the background there is provided: Brock is only different from
> a spammer for technical reasons, but for those technical reasons we
> have to keep him, according to the moderator Dev who abuses his powers
> in ways too terrible to be imagined despite being entirely imaginary,
> and who hates Brock. But Brock has never really debated: anyone, as
> has been exposed in countless Brock parodies, can just repeat his
> ludicrous garbage to dodge any point ever and that's what he does.
> Woodbridge says "prove it" or posts a link to a list of theist rules
> for debate. Brock says "or not. :)" or posts a link to Wiki or the
> Westminster Confession.
> And anyway again, the punchline--once again, Dev is proven absolutely
> right about thetards.
> So, Chris writes:
> THREAD: "Moderators: Aren't out_and_out spammers and ne're do wells
> supposed to be banned?"
> "So tell me how Woodbridge doesn't meet the criteria. And I never
> thought I'd live to see a thread when Brock didn't quote the
> Confession LOL LOL LOL (reference thread entitled 'Bible fudged to
> eliminate contradictions'. Not a once!!"
> So...evidently because two pseudo-spammers cancelled each other out,
> and Brock was less of a spammer, we should ban the newbie atheist for
> doing the atheist version of what a theist has been doing for
> _MONTHS_.
> Fuck you, thetards. You haven't earned respect. The mods have been
> discussing this: you want to ban deliberately repetitive, thoughtless
> posting as "de facto spam", fine--we can put it to a vote if this
> frankly subjective measure is to be put into place (which will, of
> course, require more discretion and calling the shots on our part)--
> but if Woodbridge goes, Brock goes, because their posting styles are
> practically _IDENTICAL_ aside from the fact that Woodbridge doesn't
> have delusions of a psychotic sky monster. There is absolutely no
> argument for why Brock participates in discussions more actively than
> Woodbridge--_none_--or even tries.
> You worthless fucktards should be ashamed of your hypocrisy. And I
> know that every sane person on this group agrees with me on this.
On Nov 13, 8:50 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> I am not a spammer. I dont want to be banned because I post a lot to
> Borgan. Borgan does not answer many questions again and again and also
> does lot of repeatation.
Patience and consistency of position are virtues I strive for. :)
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com>wrote:
> I am not a spammer. I dont want to be banned because I post a lot to
> Borgan. Borgan does not answer many questions again and again and also
> does lot of repeatation. I answer questions to Christians and also I
> ask questions to other Christians and do not post lot to them. Many
> Christians are hypocrites calling my spamming when Borgan does more.
> Christian LimaToo changed my posting yesterday and he was not
> banned.Why?
> I only want to stay to meet challenge of FlyFisher son of minister.
> Christian FlyFisher says he can prove God. I said prove it. He is
> hiding after Christian Palin lost and her prayer became false.
Don't worry Woodbridge. We're not going to ban you.
> On Nov 13, 5:12 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > As if we didn't need more proof that thetards are all hypocrites,
> > completely lacking in the capability of self-evaluation, completely
> > lacking in the ability to look in the mirror and make an assessment,
> > completely lacking period. Oh, well...
> > Digging through my own e-mail, I wrote this to Trance and Dag a few
> > days ago:
> > "Woodbridge is kind of the atheist Brock Organ, but I enjoy how much
> > this annoys the theists."
> > Just a segment from that post, which was a long explanation for why we
> > don't ban Brock:
> > "Is Brock better than a spammer? Of course not. Hit-and-run posters
> > are routinely better posters than Brock Organ. There are porn ads that
> > rival his posts in relevance and overall content. All of this makes
> > his bitching all the more ironic, because if we were to start banning
> > for content that the majority of the group members found least
> > acceptable, he would probably be the first to go. But Brock shows
> > evidence of having read posts and (technically) responds to them,
> > which means the two ways by which we definitively determine a spammer
> > do not apply to him. He is _like_ a spammer in every conceivable way,
> > but there's no consistent way we can say 'This is why we're banning
> > Brock Organ, and the same rules go for everybody' because what he's
> > doing is really dodging points and posting irrelevancies, and lots of
> > posters do that.
> > Sadder still, most of the theists here would defend the content of
> > Brock Organ's posts. Maybe all of them. This just goes to show that
> > theists will not be appropriately critical to other theists, which
> > proves the argument that they're all partially responsible for the
> > consequences of some of them. If there was such a thing as a
> > 'rational
> > theist', the least they would do is join us in bashing Brock's
> > disingenuous gibberish."
> > rappoccio, same thread:
> > "I'm in agreement with Dev. Brock is of course no BETTER than a
> > spammer, but honestly, he follows the technicalities of replying to
> > other threads (even if the replies are devoid of all content). I also
> > agree with the fact that if this WERE to become a moderated group
> > where only relevant material was allowed, Brock would have hit the
> > chopping block long ago, along with Keith. So ultimately they should
> > be happy that there is no banning but spam."
> > Anyway, the background there is provided: Brock is only different from
> > a spammer for technical reasons, but for those technical reasons we
> > have to keep him, according to the moderator Dev who abuses his powers
> > in ways too terrible to be imagined despite being entirely imaginary,
> > and who hates Brock. But Brock has never really debated: anyone, as
> > has been exposed in countless Brock parodies, can just repeat his
> > ludicrous garbage to dodge any point ever and that's what he does.
> > Woodbridge says "prove it" or posts a link to a list of theist rules
> > for debate. Brock says "or not. :)" or posts a link to Wiki or the
> > Westminster Confession.
> > And anyway again, the punchline--once again, Dev is proven absolutely
> > right about thetards.
> > So, Chris writes:
> > THREAD: "Moderators: Aren't out_and_out spammers and ne're do wells
> > supposed to be banned?"
> > "So tell me how Woodbridge doesn't meet the criteria. And I never
> > thought I'd live to see a thread when Brock didn't quote the
> > Confession LOL LOL LOL (reference thread entitled 'Bible fudged to
> > eliminate contradictions'. Not a once!!"
> > So...evidently because two pseudo-spammers cancelled each other out,
> > and Brock was less of a spammer, we should ban the newbie atheist for
> > doing the atheist version of what a theist has been doing for
> > _MONTHS_.
> > Fuck you, thetards. You haven't earned respect. The mods have been
> > discussing this: you want to ban deliberately repetitive, thoughtless
> > posting as "de facto spam", fine--we can put it to a vote if this
> > frankly subjective measure is to be put into place (which will, of
> > course, require more discretion and calling the shots on our part)--
> > but if Woodbridge goes, Brock goes, because their posting styles are
> > practically _IDENTICAL_ aside from the fact that Woodbridge doesn't
> > have delusions of a psychotic sky monster. There is absolutely no
> > argument for why Brock participates in discussions more actively than
> > Woodbridge--_none_--or even tries.
> > You worthless fucktards should be ashamed of your hypocrisy. And I
> > know that every sane person on this group agrees with me on this.
-- Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
"Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and
assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech
to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US
Supreme Court Justice
Your posts are a lot more entertaining than Broken Organ's are.
However, theists are mentally ill. They don't have standards. They are
incapable of evaluating reality. Common sense is not an option for
moderating a group in which half the posters are clearly deranged.
Fine, is what I say to that, it goes with the territory. However, it's
also evident that consistent, objective, clearly defined standards
that a child could understand are not enough, either. The stupidest
human child is smarter than the smartest adult theist. This group
proves that. It's a fact now.
I don't want to ban you. You're only as annoying, to me, as you are
amusing. But the real purpose of this thread is to get these cheap
shit hypocrites to draw the fucking line and stand by it because I am
sick of their complete lack of anything resembling humanity or human
consciousness or the standards of an insect even. That's it. I doubt
you're going anywhere, because I'll bet the thetards are going to run
from their obvious hypocrisy like the empty pieces of trash they are
do.
But if they vote you both out, as a package, I dunno. If you get a
little more involved, there won't be a comparison anymore, and you'll
be safe--in that case, we can simply see if shits like Chris want to
stand by their so-called "standards" with regards to one of their own.
You weren't really warned before about your tactics, after all, and
since they're borderline, you clearly deserve a warning. Be a little
more sincere. Post more original responses. Try to figure out what
page the other poster is on. If you do all that, nobody could compare
your posts to spam anymore without fucking themselves.
On Nov 13, 6:50 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> I am not a spammer. I dont want to be banned because I post a lot to
> Borgan. Borgan does not answer many questions again and again and also
> does lot of repeatation. I answer questions to Christians and also I
> ask questions to other Christians and do not post lot to them. Many
> Christians are hypocrites calling my spamming when Borgan does more.
> Christian LimaToo changed my posting yesterday and he was not
> banned.Why?
> I only want to stay to meet challenge of FlyFisher son of minister.
> Christian FlyFisher says he can prove God. I said prove it. He is
> hiding after Christian Palin lost and her prayer became false.
> On Nov 13, 5:12 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > As if we didn't need more proof that thetards are all hypocrites,
> > completely lacking in the capability of self-evaluation, completely
> > lacking in the ability to look in the mirror and make an assessment,
> > completely lacking period. Oh, well...
> > Digging through my own e-mail, I wrote this to Trance and Dag a few
> > days ago:
> > "Woodbridge is kind of the atheist Brock Organ, but I enjoy how much
> > this annoys the theists."
> > Just a segment from that post, which was a long explanation for why we
> > don't ban Brock:
> > "Is Brock better than a spammer? Of course not. Hit-and-run posters
> > are routinely better posters than Brock Organ. There are porn ads that
> > rival his posts in relevance and overall content. All of this makes
> > his bitching all the more ironic, because if we were to start banning
> > for content that the majority of the group members found least
> > acceptable, he would probably be the first to go. But Brock shows
> > evidence of having read posts and (technically) responds to them,
> > which means the two ways by which we definitively determine a spammer
> > do not apply to him. He is _like_ a spammer in every conceivable way,
> > but there's no consistent way we can say 'This is why we're banning
> > Brock Organ, and the same rules go for everybody' because what he's
> > doing is really dodging points and posting irrelevancies, and lots of
> > posters do that.
> > Sadder still, most of the theists here would defend the content of
> > Brock Organ's posts. Maybe all of them. This just goes to show that
> > theists will not be appropriately critical to other theists, which
> > proves the argument that they're all partially responsible for the
> > consequences of some of them. If there was such a thing as a
> > 'rational
> > theist', the least they would do is join us in bashing Brock's
> > disingenuous gibberish."
> > rappoccio, same thread:
> > "I'm in agreement with Dev. Brock is of course no BETTER than a
> > spammer, but honestly, he follows the technicalities of replying to
> > other threads (even if the replies are devoid of all content). I also
> > agree with the fact that if this WERE to become a moderated group
> > where only relevant material was allowed, Brock would have hit the
> > chopping block long ago, along with Keith. So ultimately they should
> > be happy that there is no banning but spam."
> > Anyway, the background there is provided: Brock is only different from
> > a spammer for technical reasons, but for those technical reasons we
> > have to keep him, according to the moderator Dev who abuses his powers
> > in ways too terrible to be imagined despite being entirely imaginary,
> > and who hates Brock. But Brock has never really debated: anyone, as
> > has been exposed in countless Brock parodies, can just repeat his
> > ludicrous garbage to dodge any point ever and that's what he does.
> > Woodbridge says "prove it" or posts a link to a list of theist rules
> > for debate. Brock says "or not. :)" or posts a link to Wiki or the
> > Westminster Confession.
> > And anyway again, the punchline--once again, Dev is proven absolutely
> > right about thetards.
> > So, Chris writes:
> > THREAD: "Moderators: Aren't out_and_out spammers and ne're do wells
> > supposed to be banned?"
> > "So tell me how Woodbridge doesn't meet the criteria. And I never
> > thought I'd live to see a thread when Brock didn't quote the
> > Confession LOL LOL LOL (reference thread entitled 'Bible fudged to
> > eliminate contradictions'. Not a once!!"
> > So...evidently because two pseudo-spammers cancelled each other out,
> > and Brock was less of a spammer, we should ban the newbie atheist for
> > doing the atheist version of what a theist has been doing for
> > _MONTHS_.
> > Fuck you, thetards. You haven't earned respect. The mods have been
> > discussing this: you want to ban deliberately repetitive, thoughtless
> > posting as "de facto spam", fine--we can put it to a vote if this
> > frankly subjective measure is to be put into place (which will, of
> > course, require more discretion and calling the shots on our part)--
> > but if Woodbridge goes, Brock goes, because their posting styles are
> > practically _IDENTICAL_ aside from the fact that Woodbridge doesn't
> > have delusions of a psychotic sky monster. There is absolutely no
> > argument for why Brock participates in discussions more actively than
> > Woodbridge--_none_--or even tries.
> > You worthless fucktards should be ashamed of your hypocrisy. And I
> > know that every sane person on this group agrees with me on this.- Hide quoted text -
