Continuing on that line of talk after being told it's not welcome is pretty agressive behavior. The standards for what's worth what are so messed up as to not exist, so can't judge that part, but I'd infract that.
Except that has never been done to me. As noted before proselytization has never been controversial here before, if so jmfcst would've been banned a hell of a lot earlier than he actually was.
While I think the points might be too high, looking over the original thread I can see why it might have been infracted. Your proselytizing wasn't exactly relevant to the topic at hand - it was like you decided to just go "look at how pious I am" for no apparent reason. Also, kind of a dick move given the context of the conversation...
"Jewish guy, I know you're pissed about the country that killed millions of your people once more banning something that is a sacred practice in your religion, so the solution is obviously to convert to my religion instead."
You might want to look up this thing called 'tact'.
As far as jmfct's proselytizing goes, I imagine he didn't get infracted for that much because he either kept it in the religion board or when he interjected his religion into something he interjected it in a way that was at least related to the topic. He didn't just randomly try to get angry people to convert in random threads.
Well yes the thread was rather derailed, but that was mostly due to the off the walls ravings of the person I was referring to. I wasn't the only person suggesting he calm down or pointing out how absurd it was. Also there's at least one other Jewish poster in that thread (memphis) who did not agree with him showing the obvious fact that not all Jews would react in the same way in the circumstances, and we also have plenty of other Jewish posters who don't go around screaming about how anyone who disagrees with them are Nazis, which I might add doesn't show much 'tact' either.
1. So derailing the thread further, on a completely unrelated tangent no less, is justified how exactly?
2. So there are Jews that disagree with one another on the issue and some of them might not have tact - how does that make your proselytizing any more related to the topic or imply that you don't need to have tact either?
1. If you read it you'll see it didn't get much more than one angry reply from NY Jew and didn't add to the thread derailing any far than it already had. And giving advice to someone engaging in insane rantings is quite common whenever it occurs on this forum, I wasn't the only one doing so.
2. It's in response to your point that the circumstances made it really inappropriate because any Jew would already be very offended at the topic being discussed, it was just one guy who was reacting that way. The one other Jew I saw in that thread who expressed disagreement (benconstine) did so in a far more rational manner. It was not NY Jew's position that was being replied to, but his manner of expressing it.
(I will also note that despite his statement of "anti semites like you have been trying to ban circumcision for almost 3,000 years." I actually agree with him in this case, in the sense that I don't see circumcision as a big deal and think attempts to ban it are pretty absurd. Also that I tend to think that uncircumcized males [typically the only people who DO make a big deal of it] tend to be just as irrational in their statements about it as NY Jew was being.)
just for the record even though I stand by everything I said before (and you were right I wasn't anymore hurt by your comment then I would be by a dog that barked at me), but you shouldn't have been infracted.
I think that freedom of speech should be allowed on blogs like this under almost all circumstances (I guess it's the liberal in me)