CALL FOR MODERATORS

[Res Ipsa]

Static IP addresses are owned by ISPs, governments, and some very large mega corporations, not by individuals.

LOL

I've set up dozens of small businesses with static IPs... They're not some magical NSA thing!

I think you're thinking of how large blocks of them are bought and sold. They're then resold to end users for as long as those users want to pay for them.

I had a static IP for my home office for years.

[Jersey Girl]

this

Not though IP address alone.

No one ever made that claim to start with. Certainly not me. My earlier post regarding the process of using IP Addresses as confirmation goes curiously without response from you.

The fog you've generated to avoid acknowledging the simplicity of using IP Addresses as confirmation isn't impressive. It looks just like what it is. A mass of fog to avoid confronting that which is obvious.

[honorentheos]

A mass of fog to avoid confronting that which is obvious.

That being...some people don't want people from another team being a referee?

The entire argument over access to personal information is a so-called mass of fog.

[Xenophon]

Dean Robbers,

With your God powers, can you ascertain whether access to the IP addresses can be revoked for moderators?

This is a great question that I don't want to get burried in the debate. Regardless of whoever winds up being selected it is worth looking into.

apologies if I missed the reply

[Morley]

A mass of fog to avoid confronting that which is obvious.

That being...some people don't want people from another team being a referee?

The entire argument over access to personal information is a so-called mass of fog.

Without a doubt there's some of that.
.

[Lem]

That being...some people don't want people from another team being a referee?

The entire argument over access to personal information is a so-called mass of fog.

Without a doubt there's some of that.
.

Not so much from another team, but from a TBM who has said Shades harbors anti-Mormon bigots. He has said he was 'just trolling' Shades when he said that, but he hasn't said he doesn't believe it. Shades already has said that he's not likely to choose someone who is known for going after a person (for example, the way Sledge went after Shades on SeN), so that helps.

However, Sledge's insistence that he just wants 90 days combined with his continuing to misrepresent internet security issues, is disturbing.

[ceeboo]

A mass of fog to avoid confronting that which is obvious.

That being...some people don't want people from another team being a referee?

The entire argument over access to personal information is a so-called mass of fog.

Yeah - This seems about right.

Anyway - I do want to thank all 4 of the folks that have volunteered to be a moderator here. I understand how thankless a task it is and because I have rarely expressed my appreciation for those who served as mods in the past, I wanted to at least express my appreciation to those who have come out publicly and are willing to serve this board now!

Res, Xeno, Canpakes, and Sledge - Thanks!

And Gad! Thanks for stepping in when you did. I appreciate that.

[Shulem]

However, Sledge's insistence that he just wants 90 days combined with his continuing to misrepresent internet security issues, is disturbing.

Too many red flags. Shades is taking a serious gamble if he hires Sledge. Imagine the damage one trickster could do to the board through sabotage. I'm not saying that Sledge would do that but I wouldn't trust him with the controls of this board. And all this talk about IP addresses is disturbing and Sledge's taunts and lack of regard are unprofessional.

Maybe we should consult the Tarot? Anyone got a deck and willing to toss in a couple of cards?

[IHAQ]

Everybody Wang Chung highlights some of the red flags you should all be seeing...

Sledge discussing the Reverend.
Sledge wrote:
Kishkumen is an anonymous coward who hides behind a pseudonym and trolls Dan. How is that even remotely the same?
http://disq.us/p/2a2lwhz


Sledge discussing Dr. Shades.
The difference is that I haven't hidden behind a pseudonym for 15 years with a laser-like focus on attacking one single individual. So, while it's fine to use a screen name (in fact most people do), if you are going to use it to relentlessly attack another individual over the course of 15 years, you are a coward. And your hate site is the platform upon which several pseudonymous cowards launch their hate.
http://disq.us/p/2a6zuth
Your hate is clear. You've dedicated the better part of your life to it. You've created websites that foster it. You've propagated it throughout the internet for decades. I harbor no hate, but it is everyone's duty to call it out when we encounter it.
http://disq.us/p/2acwqd0



Sledge discussing this board.
This makes your site a bigoted site and you, quite probably, a bigot. Enhanced by the fact that you have run and paid for a message board where other bigots and haters post primarily about Dr. Peterson, but also post about how much they hate the Church of Jesus Christ. So, two bigot sites created and maintained by a single person who is not affiliated with the church means that there is high probability that you are a bigot.

You set up an entire platform that harbors the worst of the anti-Mormon bigots, and you continually pay for hosting to keep it going. Plus, you almost never stand up for the truth on your festering cesspool that you promote. Like Stormfront, your site is a hate site.
http://disq.us/p/2acx3xj

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=781&p=21674#p21674

[Shulem]

Everybody Wang Chung highlights some of the red flags you should all be seeing...

Sledge could well be a Trojan horse with something very sneaky inside and up his sleeve.

What do the cards say?