October 5, 2007


I recently got banned from the Blogging Tories Forum. It is supposed to be a political forum first and foremost. I started posting there because of the John Tory platform to fund faith based schools. I was upsetting quite a few Christian Conservatives with my militant atheism and my perceived arrogance. I found out that there were quite a few evolution deniers and even YECs on that board. It is hard not to get confrontational when atheism is called a religion by the ignorant, and when idiots spew that it takes faith to be an atheist.

So one of the kiddies on the board started a subject called Atheism Kills (later renamed Does Atheism Kill because one of the moderators on the board didn't want to give lurkers the "impression" that the PC Party hates atheists).

I would have expected to get a lifetime ban if I started a topic called "Christianity Kills." And of course, this illustrates the double standards on the forum.

The start of the thread had all the old crapola about Stalin killing all kinds of people, and some Youtube videos blaming atheism on mass murders from the start of Christianity to today.

Then Lafayette chimed in with this:

It is to laugh. One of the first thing militant Atheists like to point to is how religion has killed so many people. Then, in the same breath it seems, they deny that the same yardstick can be applied to them. Well it can, and you measure up quite well in the infamy department.

Pol Pot is one of you. Stalin is one of you. Deal with it. Atheism, as a belief system, has been used to justify its share of death, and no amount of equivocation, prevarication, or denial will change that.

I'm not sure if I left a "reputation message" after this comment or after this one:

I think this is a prime example of what happens when you attack a man's religion. BEAJ has basically gone ape shit all up in here. It is slightly amusing, in a 2 year old tantrum sort of way.

This whole thread just goes to show the point that Atheism is just another religion. BEAJ has defended his faith with as much vitriol and what not as the most ardent Muslim, Christian, or anyone else. I am curious to see just how far he will go.

Either post deserved my comment (see below):
Craig (a moderator and one of the founders of Blogging Tories) PMed me (private message on the BT Forum)
Subject: Personal insults Quote message
No place for them here...

"Dumber than a rock. And I don't mean to insult rocks."

BT Forum allows you to give members reputation points and comments. The above is what I said about Lafayette.
I replied:
Re: Personal insults
I hope you are being equal and informing Lafayette too. He said I'm acting like a two year old, etc.
I'll bet you didn't send him/her a reprimand. Am I wrong?

Craig diplomatically replied:
None of your business. End it or be gone.

I replied:
Wow. I get it, and I think I totally understand you now. Not very impressed either. In fact I'm totally disappointed in your reply. I will comply with your hypocrisy, but I will write about this on my blog later this week. OK Craig? No more insults from me. I'll just take the insults without defending myself.

I made one or two posts after that, and then I found out I was banned. Then I found out my IP was banned, but I can still view most of the posts using anonymous.org.

One post was directed at Craig on a different thread:

Craig wrote:
I've never understood how someone could call themselves an atheist. Nobody knows why we are here so at the very least you should call yourself an agnostic. You don't have proof as to why we are here so how can you absolutely discount one possible option?

I replied:
An atheist can be simply someone who doesn't believe in God. Again, as pointed out on another thread, one can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
I see no evidence God exists, and the same evidence exists for my invisible man under my bed, so why consider either?

Now, apparently I am banned temporarily (after this post, maybe permanently). I've emailed three of the mods (including Craig). One moderator said that he is keeping out of it. The other said he would look into it and has now says that Craig wants an apology because I apparently personally insulted him.............WHEN AND WHERE?

If Craig is thinking that I should apologize for my email I sent him after I got banned, although it is consistent with how Craig seems to work, it should have no bearing on why I was banned in the first place.

I sent him this (he didn't reply):

You banned me?

I told you I would comply.
Seriously, are you a grown man? You are acting quite childish. You
gave me a warning and I said I would comply. You represent the
Blogging Tory community. I didn't realize that the PC party was into

I can still view the pages btw even though you banned my IP, so I can
make my case to other bloggers, using your words and my words.

The big thing here is that it is obvious that Craig treats the God fearing members of the board differently than atheists. He is so biased that he can't even recognize it when an atheist is insulted by an ignorant Fundy, or maybe it is a cultural thing that atheists are allowed to be called names once they admit to being an atheist.
Either way it reeks of hypocrisy, and it sure isn't the first time I've experienced a moderator like Craig.

I did receive this from a very sane member of Bloggging Tories:

It appears that Craig wants you to apologize for the personal insult:

I'd like to have you back as you've got a balancing perspective, and
that can have the effect of generating more activity on the forums by

Unfortunately, anonymous.org doesn't allow me to open the link above, so I don't even know what it is I'm supposed to be apologizing for.

Many PC supporter are Libertarians (I am close to Libertarian myself), because of all three major parties in Canada, the PC's platform has the least amount of government interference (that is another reason why John Tory's faith funding platform bothered me. It was totally NDPish) . But I also like the platform against terror, and realize that many people can't be trusted to completely govern themselves. I'm a strong social liberal with the exception of being strong against terror like crimes).

So alienating secularists like me (all I want is complete separation of church and state when it is all said and done), is a very bad move by a Forum like Blogging Tories. They aren't going to win too many elections if they just suck up to religionists.

Can you believe a 46 year old has to go through this nonsense in the year 2007?


  1. Tor with privoxy is easy to install and very anonymous plus it’s free. It should work to get you around IP bans.

    Great software for surfing anonymously.

    Craig is the sort of person/activist type that could likely convince anyone that the party he supports is made up largely of retards. Hopefully this is not really the case.

    Between NDP head in the sand on terror issues, Tories pushing religion and the recent Liberal history of corruption I’m thinking I might vote Green in this election.

    I’ve done a little reading on the referendum. Unless I’m getting it wrong it looks like a YES vote will put more power in the hands of the political elites and take it away from the people. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing all the time. I only say that because so many people seem to be completely uniformed or basing their opinions on biased info from whack jobs. I think last I asked you about the referendum you were sort of for it?

  2. Stalin was brought up a Christian as was Hitler. In fact according to Stalin’s biographer, Dmitri Volkogonov, Stalin regretted he hadn't become a priest so he probably thought of himself as a Christian all along. Of course to be a top coomie you had to pretend to be an Atheist. If it wasn't for secret Christians like Stalin and Hitler Soviet and Nazi regimes might have been completely different.

  3. In the entire history of civilization, atheism has never managed to become a movement let alone kill anybody in the name of the cause. Of course there is plenty of history that records the mass murders instigated by religions.

  4. This reminds me of how freerepublic.com banned all of the Giuliani supporters.

  5. As a conservative this is pretty upsetting. I worry that the Conservative parties in Canada are being more and more influenced by religious fundies like in the US. That would be bad for Canada, and worse for the Conservative party.

    I voted Liberal for the first time in my life this election, just because of Tory's idiotic idea of funding 'myth as fact' schools. He also said evolution is 'still a theory'. Evolution is a fact and a theory. I don't want this guy making decisions about kids' education.

    Also, it's not just religion that kills, but it definitely isn't atheism/non-belief. It's 'believing ideologies without evidence' that kills. Whether it's religion (one form of an ideology) or communism (another form, a political ideology).

  6. All I know is the old saying "never argue with an idiot, they just drag you down to their level then beat you with experience."

    Personally, if you just left them alone and only the read the space, they will eventually end up fighting amongst themsevles because they can't agree on everything. That's the flaw of not only christianity but every other religion. They can't all get it right or agree on the same standards, thus the wars and brutality in the name of religion.

  7. 1. Stalin and Pol Pot are bad examples. No way were they atheist. Anyone who spent a day in a good old USSR can attest that the whole Socialism thing was a religion.

    I loved the "Lenin Lived. Lenin lives. Lenin will live forever" slogan.

    2. Every party has a right to have it's own morons. Just like jhrhv says, Tories make sense on what really matters:

    - market economy
    - personal freedoms
    - foreign policy
    - security

    3. Whatcha think about Stageleft? I would appreciate your view on my latest post.

  8. The point that those people missed involves comparing apples to oranges...you can't compare dictatorships to a republic. What they should have been arguing was Robepierre's atheist state in france....but the correct answer to always use with these silly Stalin/Hitler arguments are to point right here at home, at James Madison, who was very clear about separating chruch & state when he wrote the constitution. christians have no argument or any sort of reasoning with it becaseu James MAdison was so very clear about why he set things up that way. His arguments apply just as fully now as they did 200 years ago.

  9. Flies, honey, vinegar... etc.

    The trouble with the internet is that nine times out of ten any forum you are on is not about free speech. If you agree with the mods, you are an intelligent and thoughtful poster. Disagree? Well, that depends. People can disagree, suck up, and be kept around as "controversy." Disagree and be confrontational about it, and you're automatically a "troll."

  10. You said to a fellow member...

    "You are dumber than a rock. And I don't mean to insult rocks"

    You are a cry baby. And this post is pathetic. If you are going to insult fellow members with childish comments and then cry about it on your blog then you deserve to be banned.

    I unbanned you today. But now I will ban you again for this pathetic display.

    Grow up.

  11. BTW: I don't want you to apologize to me. I want you to apologize to the person you called dumber than a rock.

    And isn't it ironic that you have comment moderation turned on. You want to filter out certain comments but apparently you get your tail in a knot when I do the same :)

    Now. If you want to apologize to the other guy I will unban you and we'll put this thing behind us. And also, if you actually want a resolution to something like this in the future crying about it in blog entry isn't the way to do it. Here is my email...


  12. The trouble with the internet is that nine times out of ten any forum you are on is not about free speech.

    If I call up the CTV and demand that they air my comments are they infringing on my right for free speech? No. They are a private network. Your suggestion that they should be forced to air your comments is an infringement on THEIR right to free speech. You can say whatever you want. But don't think you can say whatever you want on my private website. Suggesting that you should be able to say whatever you want on MY website is an infringement on free speech.

  13. Mutton Chops aka Craig, I did email you, but you did not respond to my email.
    The post here is the truth. The people who commented here get who the baby is, and btw, they have a collective IQ average about 30 points higher than the collective IQ average over at BT. I am estimating this, but I'm pretty good when it comes to this.
    The reason I have moderation on is because I have a cyber stalker named Rickey who leaves off topic slanderous posts about me and my readers when given the chance. I don't filter any comments by anyone else except actual spammers.
    Also, because this was my 499th post, it also gives me a chance to figure out when someone has replied to an old post, so I can reply back.
    I've commented on CTV news sites and they don't seem to ban anything there.
    Yes, you have the right to ban me just like I have the right to not show your comments. But would just be silly and childish of me. See, I even posted all your comments, including the ones calling me a baby.
    I will apologize, and I guess I won't get one back (you know, Lafayette said my posts are like a 2 year olds rants).
    I think many of the Blogging Tories on the Forum need me, though they don't know it.
    Again Craig, it is your perception that I'm a baby, and it is mine, that you are. Lets call it even.
    Now how do I apologize to Lafayette with the ban still on?

  14. I don't want you to apologize to me. I want you to apologize to the person you called dumber than a rock.

    beaj, Apologize for what? Apologize because someone is dumber than a rock? It's not your fault!

  15. It is a good rule in life never to apologize. The right sort of people do not want apologies, and the wrong sort take a mean advantage of them. ~P.G. Wodehouse

  16. Whenever my wife wants an apology, for some reason she never believes me when I give it to her so it is really useless.
    I'm supposed to apologize for typing the member is "dumb as a rock." But neither Craig or I can control what I think of the member in question, the apology is for typing my "rude, arrogant and insensitive thoughts," not for thinking them.
    And again, it costs me nothing to apologize, so I apologize for calling a BT Forum member a name on the BT Forums. I hope Craig will accept my apology on behalf of Lafeyette and then he can unban me.

  17. You're right about wives and apologies BEAJ. When men apologize to each other things are generally all sorted out from then on but with women you've got to wait it out for a week or so like it makes no difference at all.

  18. Jhrhv, I'm still voting for it, though I must admit I'm half ignorant of all the repercussions to expect. To me, it will mean that a vote for the Green Party in the future might mean something. But it will also potentially open the door to endless minority governments and a lot more bickering when it comes to getting something through.
    I'm still voting Liberal because Tory just doesn't get it.