Charles Anthony

Rue gets it. I would like to add one thing: the best way to deal with a troll is to ignore him. Where did we say or even suggest he was banned for his name? Please refer to this post. Correct. It was obvious that he wanted to behave in a disruptive manner. For what it may be worth, it was also obvious that other members wanted to feed the trolling. The behavior... the behavior...

As mods, we tend to avoid going into any details about a member's banning but it would a duty to clarify this issue too because UShadit publicly made a false accusation against American Woman in the forums. There should be no shadow of a doubt over this matter: American Woman did nothing to provoke UsHaditComing's banning from the forums. His banning is a result of his own actions. --------- In fact, the nature of that accusation is inherently absurd because members are not banned as a result of any popularity contest. There can not be "a concerted effort" to have a person banned -- apart from that person's own actions. It does not matter how many other members hate you or love you. If you violate the forum rules repeatedly and show no interest in participating in civilized discussion, you will be banned.

Guys, Stop the thread drift and stay on topic. -------------- Yes, but earlier.

Yes. Yes: just do your best. Do your best to avoid starting off-topic discussions and ignore them when you encounter them.

You are banned. I am not going to publicly post any of your replies to the moderator requests. I do not have your permission for that. You posted my personal communication to you on the public forums. I am glad that you posted them in chronological order -- the order in which you were reminded and re-reminded of the forum rules -- for everybody to see. --- Everybody, You are expected to provide your own original commentary associated with any quoted passages. Have I said that enough?

Agreed.Keep the political discussions focussed in the political sub-forums.

I disagree. No action taken. I sort of agree but not enough. Action taken instead: merged first thread with a different active "Afghanistan" discussion thread. I agree. Threads merged. You would not be the only one. We get requests of this sort often but usually they are sent discreetly through the PM system of the forum instead of creating a thread discussion. The concept of "fair" is highly variable. However, I am convinced that my decision to merge your two "social credit" threads was applied properly to foster discussion on the topic. [if you are looking to participate in a blog, this forum does not happen to be the place.] I do not believe it warranted a separate thread which entails a risk of future confusion: same topic but other members do not know where to post. No. Reducing the risk of future clutter. --- The decision to merge threads is subjective and it is done with the goal of minimizing clutter and fostering discussion. I can not stress this enough: many competing factors come in to play and they all have to be balanced subjectively. There is no straight-line continuum from "good" merger to "bad" merger. When I am not certain that a merger of threads is beneficial, I tend to leave it alone. One factor is seriousness. To the best of my judgement, I will avoid merging an excellent discussion thread with a poor quality discussion thread. That would NOT be a good merge. However, I admit this is highly subjective. One other factor is the chronology of the containing posts. If the interweaving of the various posts from the two sister threads adds confusion, I will avoid merging the two threads even if they are on the same topic. If there is a time gap between the last post of the first thread and the first post of the second thread, that scenario would lend itself to a good merge on the same topic. However, if the time gap is too great, I might avoid merging the threads. There is value to fresh lively discussion even if the debate is old. One more factor is the recommendation from other members and their explanations. --- The title of this thread has been changed from "deleted thread" to "perceived deleted thread, actually just merged into current active thread" for accuracy.

I do not believe the two separate threads were necessary because of the obvious overlap of the topic. Fruitful discussion is discouraged when members are confused about which thread to continue. Yes. Please do that. Yes. Send a message to Greg, the forum administrator. He has the final say over me.

You are mistaken.

You are mistaken. None of your threads were deleted. The two threads were combined and all of their containing posts were preserved in their chronological order. A common title was composed for the new combined thread: A synopsis of Social Credit thought, Monetary Reform, Douglas' A+B Theorem I do not believe the two separate threads were necessary.

Both of those threads have been merged.

The posting privileges of RBacon have been suspended due to repeated violations of the rules on posting articles. Just posting an article or a link is unacceptable. It is strictly against the forum rules to post re-copied articles. It is also expected that an original commentary or contribution by the forum member be included with a post.

Everybody, Stop the insults and inflammatory language. Despite the vast majority of this entire thread being nonsense and flamebait, there are a few attempts to actually discuss the topic. I urge everybody to remain focussed on the topic in a civilized manner.

Occasionally, the colloquialisms are purely used to inflame discussions and the intention is to avoid such incidents. That is all. Higgly, My posting privileges have been suspended last year already in the discussion forums, eh? That quotation in my signature which YOU present as an insult was very well defended and explained, in my opinion. It is not presented as a cheap, drive-by insult nor as a joke. It is a profound statement of opinion on Canadian culture which transcends politics and I honestly believe it is accurate.

The forum rules have been updated to discourage the use of subtle third-party insults. Please take note of the following: forum rules

Yes.The following two previous threads have been merged together: Presidential Elections, 2008 2008 us presidency candidates, whats your opinion? As with all merged threads, the original posts from each of the original ones have been preserved in chronological order.

Everybody, Stop the personal attacks. Just focus on the topic discussion and not on the person.

Yes: Open discussion on any aspect of municipal and or rural politics in Canada.

Everybody, Take this as a global warning: stop the personal attacks and just focus on discussing the topic. I understand that tempers can easily flare and the debate can get heated but things are degrading into boring childish banter. I do not care who started what. If the public nagging continues, there will be suspensions.

The personal banter can be thrown back and forth through the PM function. It does not belong in the public discussion forum. Everybody should call down and stop the inflammatory posts. There is no need for all of the nagging and personal attacks.

Correct. It was deleted for that reason as well because the replies were filled with notices of the cross-posting and personal attacks. Nobody was discussing the actual topic. Correct. The rules are clear and the current stance is the same as it always has been: cross-posting is against the rules. If you are looking to learn how each specific violation is handled throughout the forum, it is not going to happen.

Neither do I. I routinely access the forums with all sorts of combinations of browsers (Firefox, Opera, Safari and Internet Exploiter) and operating systems (Linux, Mac9, Mac OS X and Microsoft) without a hitch. I only get a semblance of this problem when I set my Display Mode to Outline which presents a threaded version of the posts at the bottom which appears as a recursive directory tree. This list displays the first line of each post. Each post is displayed chronologically. With a branch, each post is clearly identified as a reply to a specific post. You must provide more information about what you see. First, is your forum Display Mode set to the Standard, Outline or Linear mode? These options are customized on an individual basis by the user. This setting is found under the Options menu in the top right corner. If you have JavaScript active in your browser, you are presented with a drop down menu. If you have turned JavaScript off, you would be sent to the bottom of the page and presented with the same three options in a horizontal menu.

That thread is now open. The explanation is here. Indeed, there have been other threads recently deleted: Ode To A Fart Are John Baird's eyes too close together? The guy has a weird face I am a trol! could it be true? These last three threads were comical but they did not foster civilized political discussion.

The two previous posts in this thread have been deleted. One of those posts lay outside the bounds of civilized discussion by overtly describing gratuitous lethal violence. The second post quoted the first. No other posts have been deleted nor edited in this thread.

That thread is under review. Some of the posts within that thread can conceivably be construed as against the law -- the law which supercedes the rules of this forum. We will give you an update as soon as possible.