"The original post, counter to JtS's characterization, contains a link to a rational discussion of how atheists still manage to have joyful lives filled with moral choices and distinctions. It has the title 20 Atheist Quotes About Joy and Meaning That Crush 'Angry, Empty' Stereotype, posted on February 7, 2014. "

COUNTER to my characterization? What you have noted is the exact point of my characterization.   When linking to an article for atheist, by an atheist and about atheists why does he not use the term "atheist"?   

Because he wants to see another argument about the use of the word "atheist." In my humble opinion. Or he wants to see the word banned from this forum through wearing repetition. Yet the word is all over his link. Maybe that does not fit your definition of trolling. That's cool. But my point to McGrath was about not being able to post controversial opinions without someone taking offense. I thought that the article was unfair to the pastor and that the title was offensive who thinks that having agreed upon standard definitions of words is useful in a discussion. Frankly, I am tired of a few people pulling definitions out of their own butts and condescending to people who think the dictionary words are more accurate. But I digress.

My point to McGrath was is very difficult on this forum to discuss controversial topics without "insulting" or "being unkind" to someone. One needs to find reasonable lines. I have two lines, people who deliberately insult me, who when appropriate, get reminded of the rules and and people whose impolite behavior, I am forced to look at every day ie songwronger, who, I believe has been allowed unique status in taking advantage of Joe Offer's unwritten rules of thread titles. I believe that the second situation will be taken care of because I believe that eventually all will see that it is the right thing to do. I believe that the first situation has improved to the point where action is much less necessary.

Which brings us to a bit of an ethical dilemma.   Is it less polite banter with someone who clearly want to play word games? To point out how they are coming across, or to ignore them. The compromise I have selected for myself is a combination of the first two while trying to avoid direct insults and declining the odd invitation to bicker.

The thought has crossed my mind that you may be vaguely hinting that I am a troll. If I am a troll, its allowed.

I am free to be anything I want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty.

If you want to make a case that I am being unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty. I'll hear you out, but keep in mind that I come here partly to debate and as has being pointed out there is a fine line between arguing and being argumentative. My lines on "argumentative" are picking fights, arguing for its own sake and returning to points that have been talked to death such as whether the word "atheist" exists. Its in the OED and every other dictionary. It exists.

Like religion and morality the rules of this forum are subject to personal interpretation. But I hope that we can all agree that calling people "Twat, Whacko, The Worm, Jerk and troll, for that matter, are not subject to wiggle room. You can disagree with people without labeling them with insults.