doubtingthomas’s topics MEGATHREAD

[Jersey Girl]

Actually, no, you don't "have" to respond to a post that was made on Thursday when this is Saturday. You've obviously been at least temp banned and you persist in circumventing that ruling. Just how obtuse are you?

Like I told you before. When I was eternally banned I never ONCE tried to get back in here. That banning lasted 2-3 YEARS.

So what is YOUR freaking problem?

If you have been temp or perma banned, take it on the chin like the rest of the world does and reflect on why that happened. No one here is treating you any differently than any other poster. If any other poster behaved the way you are, they'd receive the same correction.

You have threatened to destroy this board at least once that I know of. Another poster said 2-3 times but I didn't see those. Against the rules.

You have made up a third sock (in this current case) and you've done it before in other cases. Also against the rules.

You are making yourself look like a desperate ass or someone who can't or refuses take no for an answer. How much more compulsive does it get? I don't want to know the answer to that question.

Stop it.

[Marcus]

Are you asking that seriously?

Yes.

Ok.

If the same poster breaks the same rule repeatedly, in a short amount of time, which may require moderator attention to correct, and when said rule violation has been indicated, then a temporary ban should be considered for that poster, with the possibility of a permanent ban if the rules continue to be ignored.

So, for example, DT started at least two sock puppets, in violation of universal rule 11, in the last 48 hours. as far as I know, those two sock puppets have been deleted, and their comments have been condensed under his name, DT. the evidence is there, but the history s there, in the form of quotes.

AFTER the two sock puppets were deleted (as far as I know), DoubtingThomas activated a third sock puppet, about 70 minutes ago. That is the third violation of UR 11. If the only penalty is to delete the sock but not penalize the poster, it is obvious that they will simply do it again.

in my opinion, that constitutes a reason to ban the poster, temporarily or permanently.

[Jersey Girl]

3 consecutive strikes on the same rule violation.

[Marcus]

2. Feminists will only accomplish that young women avoid the average guys, not the expert manipulators. The expert manipulators will always be with younger women.

This is how this sounds:

Average guys won’t GET this THING, because expert manipulators always GET the THING they want.

4. A lot of good men in their 30s are simply looking for a wife, but their options are shrinking thanks to feminists.

A lot of men WANT this THING, but their abilities to GET this THING are limited by people who are taking away their options to GET this THING.

That’s how DoubtingThomas talks about women. They are THINGS that he deserves to GET.

It’s sickening.

[Res Ipsa]

Yes.

Ok.

If the same poster breaks the same rule repeatedly, in a short amount of time, which may require moderator attention to correct, and when said rule violation has been indicated, then a temporary ban should be considered for that poster, with the possibility of a permanent ban if the rules continue to be ignored.

So, for example, DT started at least two sock puppets, in violation of universal rule 11, in the last 48 hours. as far as I know, those two sock puppets have been deleted, and their comments have been condensed under his name, DT. the evidence is there, but the history s there, in the form of quotes.

AFTER the two sock puppets were deleted (as far as I know), DoubtingThomas activated a third sock puppet, about 70 minutes ago. That is the third violation of UR 11. If the only penalty is to delete the sock but not penalize the poster, it is obvious that they will simply do it again.

in my opinion, that constitutes a reason to ban the poster, temporarily or permanently.

OK, work through this with me. If we had banned or suspended the account “doubtingthomas” a couple of days ago, would the board look any different than it does right now?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ban the IP address.

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

Ban the IP address.

- Doc

smh

[Marcus]

Ok.

If the same poster breaks the same rule repeatedly, in a short amount of time, which may require moderator attention to correct, and when said rule violation has been indicated, then a temporary ban should be considered for that poster, with the possibility of a permanent ban if the rules continue to be ignored.

So, for example, DT started at least two sock puppets, in violation of universal rule 11, in the last 48 hours. as far as I know, those two sock puppets have been deleted, and their comments have been condensed under his name, DT. the evidence is there, but the history s there, in the form of quotes.

AFTER the two sock puppets were deleted (as far as I know), DoubtingThomas activated a third sock puppet, about 70 minutes ago. That is the third violation of UR 11. If the only penalty is to delete the sock but not penalize the poster, it is obvious that they will simply do it again.

in my opinion, that constitutes a reason to ban the poster, temporarily or permanently.

OK, work through this with me. If we had banned or suspended the account “doubtingthomas” a couple of days ago, would the board look any different than it does right now?

How would i know? I don't know how your moderation works.

I will say, however, that your decision to take the comments from TWO sock puppets and attach them to the account of the person who made the sock puppets indicated to him that the sock puppet rule is toothless, and that the mods are working for him.

I would argue when rule 11 says sock puppets will be deleted, that implies the sock puppet comments will also be deleted.

[doubtingthomas]

No one here is treating you any differently than any other poster.

That's not true! I already explained why. The mods are treating me very unfairly.

I'll stop coming, but please stop replying. Help me out here.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ban the IP address.

- Doc

smh

Why syh?