TO THE MD&D POSTER KNOWN AS "ZERINUS". . .

[_Dr. Shades]

To the MD&D poster known as "ZERINUS:"

YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PREVENTED FROM POSTING HERE. I WOULD MOST CERTAINLY LOVE TO HAVE YOU AS A REGISTERED USER. Read on:

I doubt it. They have tweaked their registration system so that it is impossible to register automatically.

That's not exactly true. I simply had to disable the automatic registrations of some of the major web-based e-mail domains because they were so heavily utilized by spammers. Take gmail for example; if I was to re-enable it, we'd get one or so pornographic threads per day with XXX-rated images auto-posted by porn bots. I should know; that was the state of affairs before I disabled gmail.

If you were to register from, say, your work e-mail, you wouldn't have a problem.

They force you to send an email to the administer and request a manual registration. The only reason I can think of why they would want to do that is to decide in advance whom to let in and whom not to.

THAT IS 100% UNTRUE. The reason I implemented that is so I could continue to register real humans who nevertheless use the same web-based e-mail accounts as the spammers, like gmail and hotmail. NEVER AT ANY TIME HAVE I REFUSED A REQUEST TO REGISTER SOMEONE MANUALLY. Besides, I'd never even heard of you until several minutes ago; how would I know to NOT register you?

Anyways, I tried, and got no reply, so the obvious conclusion must be that they don't want to.

No, I most definitely DO want to register anyone who wishes to post here. That's the whole point of MormonDiscussions.com. If you didn't get a reply, then you must've mistyped my e-mail address or something. Send another e-mail to:

drshades1@gmail.com

. . . with the username and password you want and I'll create your account right now (or, more accurately, as soon as I get your e-mail).

Apparently this guy was blocked by Shades before he ever registered.

Nope. I HAVE NEVER DONE ANYTHING LIKE THAT, EVER. There's not a single human being on this entire planet whose opinion I fear enough to not allow him or her to register here. Certainly not Zerinus, of whom I'd never even heard before a few minutes ago.

(Hey Shades how about stop deleting every new account in a futile attempt to keep the number of users at 1000. Pleaze?)

I don't delete new accounts. I merely deactivate old accounts of posters who have posted 0, 1, or (rarely) 2 times who haven't logged in for a year or more. New posters simply don't have their accounts deactivated.

[_Equality]

Shades,

Did any of the people slandering you on this subject apologize to you?

[_stemelbow]

Shades,

Did any of the people slandering you on this subject apologize to you?

Slander? What does slander mean to you?

I''m guessing Zerinus is not interested to register. But he might if he sees this thread. We'll see.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Go tell him, stem, we are all banned.

[_stemelbow]

Go tell him, stem, we are all banned.

So you really want me too? Really, Zerinus?

[_Equality]

Shades,

Did any of the people slandering you on this subject apologize to you?

Slander? What does slander mean to you?

I''m guessing Zerinus is not interested to register. But he might if he sees this thread. We'll see.

You are right. Technically, I suppose it would be libel, bot slander. How's this for a definition?: A false statement made about a person to damage that person's reputation. Here, we have a false statement (that Shades bans people from the board for no reason) made about Shades the effect of which could damage Shades' reputation. One of the primary features of the MDB is its open character--anyone can participate with almost no censorship. To go on another board and lie about Shades on this subject could certainly damage his reputation. To say that Shades is banning people from posting here for no reason is tantamount to calling him a liar. Falsely calling someone a liar can damage that person's reputation and could be found to be defamatory in a court of law.

Either that, or I was using the term loosely. You decide.

[_stemelbow]

You are right. Technically, I suppose it would be libel, bot slander. How's this for a definition?: A false statement made about a person to damage that person's reputation. Here, we have a false statement (that Shades bans people from the board for no reason) made about Shades the effect of which could damage Shades' reputation.

I must have missed any false statement made about Shades as you suggest. Who said it where?

One of the primary features of the MDB is its open character--anyone can participate with almost no censorship. To go on another board and lie about Shades on this subject could certainly damage his reputation. To say that Shades is banning people from posting here for no reason is tantamount to calling him a liar. Falsely calling someone a liar can damage that person's reputation and could be found to be defamatory in a court of law.

Either that, or I was using the term loosely. You decide.

No one said Shades banned people from posting here for no reason.

but seeing how you interpreted all I see where your huffy posture is coming from.

[_Equality]

No one said Shades banned people from posting here for no reason.

but seeing how you interpreted all I see where your huffy posture is coming from.

They force you to send an email to the administer and request a manual registration. The only reason I can think of why they would want to do that is to decide in advance whom to let in and whom not to.

This quote falsely states that Shades decides in advance who to let in and who not to (i.e., who to ban). I know reading comprehension is not your strong suit, but seriously?

How's this for a fair summary. Zerinus at MD&D (and one here who believed Zerinus) made false statements about the MDB policy for letting people register and post here. Shades corrected their false statements. I ask again, has anyone (most notably Zerinus) apologized for telling falsehoods about Shades?

[_stemelbow]

This quote falsely states that Shades decides in advance who to let in and who not to (i.e., who to ban). I know reading comprehension is not your strong suit, but seriously?

You know this is not even worth quibbling about, but you can't seriously take Zerinus' assumption of why the need to email for registration as anything more than an opinion, right?

How's this for a fair summary. Zerinus at MD&D (and one here who believed Zerinus) made false statements about the MDB policy for letting people register and post here. Shades corrected their false statements. I ask again, has anyone (most notably Zerinus) apologized for telling falsehoods about Shades?

I don't think Zerinus is aware of Shades policy. It seems quite evident he is not. Did Zerinus speak out of ignorance? Sure. Does that equate to false statements and slander or libel? not even close.

[_Equality]

Either that, or I was using the term loosely. You decide.

Sometimes I forget how dense an apologist's brain really is. Jesus on a Big Wheel. Yeesh.