Open thread for those of an unmoderating dispostion

[Alan Fox]

Let's test a claim by Sal Cordova!

I read in another venue that the commenter Thorton was no longer able to post at all at this site. Sal says not so; s/he's only "uninvited" from the threads s/he has participated in due to rule violations and can post in other threads where the thread author sets the rules.

Right! My rules are, other than spam, porn, defamation and false advertising claims, there are no rules.

I'll give Thorton a headsup and see if s/he can post here.

And no need to point out I'm a liar for saying my previous comment on this site was my last one. Sal's response changed the situation. If Thorton is not actually blocked from logging in and can do so, I'll continue to participate where time permits and interest persists.

PS @ Sal

I don't hate you, Sal. I told you before, you are the reason I developed an interest in the ID movement. I'm even more fascinated now you've emerged from the Creationist closet.

[stcordova]

Sal says not so

I said he was, I didn't say he isn't now.

Thornton broke the rules after being advised:

2. AUTHORS ARE MODERATORS OF THEIR OWN THREADS, THEY SET THE RULES. An author of a thread is defined as the individual who starts a new thread by pressing the "new topic" button. He has the right to exclude participants in his discussion. However, an excluded participant is allowed to post one reply with a link to a website or a new thread expressing his dissenting views. The form of his parting reply must be essentially:

This is my final post on this thread, and I will host further discussion here:
[url]link to further discussion[/url]

It must follow this form or will be subject to getting edited in order to conform, and a warning will be issued, and repeat offenders will be banned. This is to prevent rude parting shots by the excluded participant.

He violated that simple rule and the spirit of the forum right after he was advised, he's gone.

He was read the warning here:

Thornton Warned

Thornton in the very next post violated forum rules, clearly showing his contempt for the mission of the forum and clear intent to be a repeat offender .

[stcordova]

3. Notwithstanding the great amount of leeway granted in expressing ones views, spamming behavior or other behavior deeply inconsistent with the mission statement may result in permanent banning.

[Rich]

LOL@Creationist message control. This is already going the way of "Young Cosmos".

http://badidea.wordpress.com/2007/12/27 ... -salesman/

http://badidea.wordpress.com/2007/12/28 ... into-cows/

http://stlouisskepticalsociety.blogspot ... rdova.html

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/07/th ... rdova.html

http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=461

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ik ... 44&p=69528

[Tragic Mishap]

Curious, does this mean that if Thorton doesn't post Alan's hypothesis is proved correct?

Interesting mode of reasoning, although the point appears moot.

[Rich]

Typical Sal:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ik ... ntry233367

[DiEb]

From FORUM RULES - AUTHOR MODERATED DISCUSSIONS:

Thus no voice is ever really silenced in the forum.

[stcordova]

Typical Sal:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ik ... ntry233367

April Fools!

[Alan Fox]

Well let me know if you decide to clean up your act, Sal. Until that happens (which I don't expect any time soon going on previous experience) I see no future in further attempts at dialogue.