Replies

I've put my finger on it. The part that makes it look bad is not calling ALS a troll, but rather, giving the impression that ALS is an "official" troll under the agreement banner--without some sort of consultation/vote. AFAIK, only one or two creationist posters would agree that he is intentionally disruptive.... you know?

There is no provision to outright call anyone a troll.

"After having made such a good faith attempt to bring the offending poster into compliance, if the problematic poster continues in the offending behavior we may post a warning (such as: "Don't feed the trolls!") to other posters that the problematic party has chosen not to comply. If the problem persists, the offender may thereafter be called a provocateur, troll, spammer, or disruptor, and doing so will not be a violation of this agreement."

This was not done. I made only one post and it was not to him. There was no call to call me names unless the intent is to cast aspersions on my character in order to gain credibility for himself at my expense.
Please note how utterly ridiculous it is to sanction name calling in an agreement that is supposed to bring the signer into compliance with fostering good will in threads as it clearly shows here:
"Effective August 9, 2003, we, the undersigned, freely and in good faith agree that henceforth we shall treat others on these threads as we wish to be treated ourselves."

I was unaware of your posts prior to my post 93. Please read the post and why I consider the comments on DittoJed2 and ALS egregious.

I've put my finger on it. The part that makes it look bad is not calling ALS a troll, but rather, giving the impression that ALS is an "official" troll under the agreement banner--without some sort of consultation/vote. AFAIK, only one or two creationist posters would agree that he is intentionally disruptive.... you know?

First of all, when someone's conduct has crossed all the tidy little lines of the agreement: (1) disruptive conduct; (2) polite warning given, which specifies the conduct in question; (3) persistence in the disruptive conduct; he can be quite properly called a troll. He is entitled to none of the protections of the agreement. We treat the troll as we ourselves would expect to be treated. It's the Golden Rule being applied to someone that everyone realizes is breaking all standards of civilized behavior in here.

What's happeining here is that someone has been labeled a troll from another thread, and here we are in a new thread, and the same person is here. We don't need to go through the same drill each time a new thread is begun.

If only one or two on the creationist side are able to see anything wrong with the troll's disruptive conduct, it's because they have not yet awakened to the serpent in their own garden.