>     For the record, I have accused certain posters of being sub-
> human.  It is really a consideration of their capacities.  That they
> would divert from empathy puts them outside of a requisite factor for
> my subjective consideration of humanity.  Humanism seems to rely on
> such empathy.  Of course it's hyperbole, and these people are
> (probably) human by biological definition and even further, are and
> should be protected by humanist considerations of their locale and
> governing bodies, to the extent those bodies rely on humanism.  But
> the point remains, that if you are knowingly or negligently complicit
> or in defense of atrocities and transgressions of irrational or
> inhumane consequence or consideration, you should be able to shoulder
> that complicity.  In humans with a correlative empathy, a change of
> position or some apologetic and future consideration based on this
> understanding should be expected.  Where a further defense,
> universally steeped in the same ignorance that negates such empathy
> and humanist consideration, is contrived, the only course of action
> I'm available, is further attempts to illuminate the humanistic
> benefits of my positions.  When that fails, as it does so often, what
> do I have left?  I can take comfort that those who do not need the
> illustration can enjoy any entertaining point I may raise, even if it
> is just the mode that provides the humor.  Most of the Christian
> regulars are a lost cause.  Now for that context....

>     Batshit is a regular poster here, as is bob600, and batshit was
> given to vandalising pages, as he couldn't come up with an argument
> (for anything, I'm not shitting you, he's really out there and without
> a substantial position of any sort)  So, when there were regular
> inconsistencies with bob600's posts, and no rationale to defend the
> theistic positions he does (really, he's an atheist, he says) and
> continued redefining everything to fit his previous posts, all in an
> atttempt to irrationally run into a stalemate on a few threads in
> question, he came under fire.  And Batshit Horsefuck was seemingly a
> great example of what bob600 was defending, in his hypothetical
> discussion.  It became a joke that the only reason an atheist would
> defend the deplorable, historical, consequences of thestic influence
> was to avail an end from the resulting atrocities, i.e., pictures of
> dead children by the means of theistic embattlement, children of the
> holocaust, children being "exorcised" to death by parents "obeying the
> will of God", etc.  Disgusting and nauseating, but that was the
> point.  It was an inference, that if you have the ability to be
> reasonable, made some sick sense.  There was no "reasonable" defense
> for the atrocities, etc., so it was as reasonable (not at all) an
> assumption for the rest of us to laugh at.  Anyhow, Omprem (aka
> Batshit aka Horseshit aka Horsefuck Batshit) continued vandalising
> pages.  So the Topic Heading was changed upon fixing the page, once
> again, to, "Omprems Continued Vandalisation of {this page} is an
> admission that he supplies the pictures for bob600 to masturbate to."
> or something very similar.  Horsefuck Batshit vandalised the page
> further, to the laughing delight of the rest of the posters who saw
> this as humorous (myself one of the foremost).  Now fast forward to
> today.  bob600 vandalises a page he happens to take issue with because
> it is directed at him, and he is the butt of the joke.  Instead of
> doing the more rational thing in rebutting, recanting, or creating a
> page of his own to offset the page that was authored by someone else,
> he went on to try and change the page.  So, that is where we left off,
> with me correcting the page (as I do whenever I se a vandalised page)
> and I added the topic heading you see now.  It's a nasty jab, but it's
> in response to unwise attempts at dishonoring that expression thing
> most of us seem to hold dear.

>     As to your response to my posts, I'm only aware of this one and
> another, the other where you siad it was a great post.  Excuse my
> misconstrued expectation that you were being facetious when you
> praised it.  I was speaking to the defense of theism and it's
> influences as being hypocritical by anyone who ascribes to logical
> consideration.  In a few other threads, you were embroiled in an
> exchange with Dev and perhaps others, and it was toward the defense of
> moderate theists, I could be mistaken (and will admit so If I am
> properly corrected).  Somewhere in these posts, though I wasn't of the
> position that I ought to jump in, it was more personally involved and
> outside my consideraton, especially with my real-life time
> constraints, you'd expressed that Dev's "groupies" would engage in
> "metooism" in his support and in an unthinking responsive manner.  I
> assumed you'd mean any support of Dev's postings.  I agree with most
> of Dev's precepts to which I am aware, and I have a severe sense of
> humor.  Some could describe it as sick.  I just think it's perhaps
> more sensitive to humor than others, but I digress.  There' s no
> accounting for taste.  Anyhow, it seemed you had engaged in name
> calling, at the same time you were condemning it.  You went on to
> defend yourself, all the while calling out Dev's "groupies".  Dev
> handled himself entirely well without assistance, and I can see how
> you were being hypocritical in that instance.  Also, you aim to
> moderate discussion here to avoid off-setting so-called lurkers?  They
> are going to have to avail themselves such consideration, that's not
> mine nor yours to decide.  Google, they may take issue.  You and I
> (and Dev, and Brock <shudder> ,and Batshit <near faint>) are equal in
> our limitations of posting here.  I'm of the opinion of the less
> (limitation in expression) the better.

> On Jul 5, 7:22 pm, Baz <bcli...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

> > Shot, hey, not bad. You haven't accused anyone of being sub-human or
> > wished anybody dead yet. You're OK with me, so far.

> > Want to give me the context as to why this web-site would be
> > considered humorous, then? I'm an occasional poster... (this week has
> > been sooo boring, winding up Dev was the only relief).

> > I'm sorry, really, but I don't recall which post of yours I have
> > reacted to negatively. If there is one or more that you think I was
> > unfair, please point me to it/ them.

> > Although I understand what you are saying about the "thetard bunch", I
> > don't think what you are expressing here is justifiable. You say "So,
> > in anger, I'll say whatever is necessary to get my point of being
> > hostile across." But there is a line, isn't there, where it becomes
> > objectionable and even works against the secularist cause? Other than
> > that I agree with everything you say (I think.. it all gets bit misty
> > at the end :). I am certainly not an advocate of everybody being nice
> > to each other all the time (as you may have noticed). I just don't
> > like my, or anybody else's, humanity, being challenged... if I'm sub-
> > human do I still have human and civil rights? If not, we're are not
> > going to agree.

> > Thank you for taking the time to lay it all out, though.
> > On Jul 5, 5:50 pm, Shot In The Dark <adgies...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >     In order to find the humor, you'd probably have to