Not sure. You'll have to ask the parties that were involved in that.MrStakhanovite wrote:
What went down with LDSFAQS, getting a three week break then is posting hours later?
Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18519
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm
Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 6752
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am
Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot
EAllusion wrote:Jskains made a frivolous legal threat against the board recently and he wasn't banned for it; rather he received a longish suspension.
ahh, make mental note: frivolous threads are not a problem and do not full uner the new rule, and hence should not even be considered for retroactive banning.
now of course losing skains would be a huge loss to the board, almost as much as losing bot.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 5269
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am
Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot
Bob,
Face it, you are a professional bully. You get paid more money than you are worth to defend cults like NXIVM (where more charges from women who left NXIVM claim you tried to outright intimidate them). You leap to defend child molesters for the Church, you write terrible reviews on Mountain Meadows Massacre that you pretend is “scholarship” and that you are “published” in the field, you gay bait people, you rat out people to their families, and you lie as a matter of habit.
You’re not a good person Bob, you have been morally inbred by your church and you’ve been intellectually inbred by your apologetics.
You’re a damn coward, a paper pushing weasel, and a horrible thinker. If you have any love for that institution you insist is a Church, you’d bow out of any public interaction, because you are clearly deficient in it.
Don’t play that anonymous card with me either, you know my name, you know where I live, and you have access to my family. You’ll probably ignore this, because you can’t play the role of Der Commissar and go running to some inane priesthood chain of corporate command to make my life miserable, so you’ll stick to those whom you can hold that over your head.
Face it, you are a professional bully. You get paid more money than you are worth to defend cults like NXIVM (where more charges from women who left NXIVM claim you tried to outright intimidate them). You leap to defend child molesters for the Church, you write terrible reviews on Mountain Meadows Massacre that you pretend is “scholarship” and that you are “published” in the field, you gay bait people, you rat out people to their families, and you lie as a matter of habit.
You’re not a good person Bob, you have been morally inbred by your church and you’ve been intellectually inbred by your apologetics.
You’re a damn coward, a paper pushing weasel, and a horrible thinker. If you have any love for that institution you insist is a Church, you’d bow out of any public interaction, because you are clearly deficient in it.
Don’t play that anonymous card with me either, you know my name, you know where I live, and you have access to my family. You’ll probably ignore this, because you can’t play the role of Der Commissar and go running to some inane priesthood chain of corporate command to make my life miserable, so you’ll stick to those whom you can hold that over your head.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3542
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:19 pm
Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot
Crockett has edited (and cleaned up) fourteen of his year 2010 posts in the Rcrocket's Libel thread (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9734). All today. He's covering his tracks.
edit: pages 10- 14, I think.
edit: pages 10- 14, I think.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18519
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm
Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot
RockSlider wrote:
ahh, make mental note: frivolous threads are not a problem and do not full uner the new rule, and hence should not even be considered for retroactive banning.
now of course losing skains would be a huge loss to the board, almost as much as losing bot.
I'm sure the nature of the threat in of itself will determine the severity of the reaction. They certainly are a problem given the rule as written.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18519
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm
Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot
Mormon apologetics in my online experience in a nutshell.Morley wrote:Crockett has edited (and cleaned up) fourteen of his year 2010 posts in the Rcrocket's Libel thread (http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... f=1&t=9734). All today. He's covering his tracks.
edit: pages 10- 14, I think.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18519
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm
Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot
If this thread is going to be Bob's greatest hits, my personal favorite is when he claimed that the Mayans had no written language, attributed this claim to Dr. Coe, then got absorbed in a BS chain defending himself over multiple threads.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... ph#p133627
Lying ain't lying when it is lying for the lord.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... ph#p133627
Lying ain't lying when it is lying for the lord.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 21373
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm
Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot
EAllusion wrote:If this thread is going to be Bob's greatest hits, my personal favorite is when he claimed that the Mayans had no written language, attributed this claim to Dr. Coe, then got absorbed in a BS chain defending himself over multiple threads.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5434&p=133627&hilit=glyph#p133627
Lying ain't lying when it is lying for the lord.
Definitely my personal favorite because it was so incredibly stupid.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18519
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm
Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot
MrStakhanovite wrote: You leap to defend child molesters for the Church
Eh....everyone deserves a legal defense and their doesn't appear to be a slam dunk case against him to say there was a miscarriage of justice here. I don't think this is warranted. People's lives can be ruined with the mere accusation of child sexual abuse and you shouldn't participate in that unless you have a degree of certainty here that I don't see how you could have.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 21373
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm
Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot
MrStakhanovite wrote:You get paid more money than you are worth to defend cults like NXIVM (where more charges from women who left NXIVM claim you tried to outright intimidate them). You leap to defend child molesters for the Church...
Holy mother of pearl!!!
A cult? Really?
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist