DNAunion

DNAunion: Sorry, but you are almost assuredly wrong. And we can actually test it.

If what you assert is so, then I will not be banned when the ARN board comes back up.

But if the ARN board was actually shut down due to violations of the board rules - as their own words state - then I will be banned when the ARN board comes back up.

Testable prediction. Anyone care to place their bets?

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]</p>

DNAunion

DNAunion: It was taken down one other time, probably about 1.5 or 2 years ago.

And that shut down was for the same reason - repeated offenses by several people that led to a degradation of the board's quality.

And when the ARN board came back up after that first shut down, I was banned. Yes, me. Who at the time was probably the most prominent "IDist" there.

Their closing the ARN board down the first time had nothing to do with the "Creationists getting their butts kicked"; it had to do with trying to restore civil debate. I see nothing different this time.

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]</p>

DNAunion

PS: Scientiae, I found it necessary to edit both of my two above posts after they were made. Are you going to claim here - as you did at ARN - that my doing so means I am lying?

Principia

No, DNAUnion, I am an optimist of human nature, and I believe that you have learned your lesson, so I find no need.

SC

Richiyaado

Hello All,

Sorry to horn in DNAunion, but I'd say you should be banned if Scientiae is. But I'm not a betting man.

P.S. I'll save you the trouble: Richiyaado is.... an idiot... a numbskull.... a blockhead... take your pick!

Principia

Thanks for the, uh, ringing endorsement, Richiyaado.

BTW, the banner on the ARN forum was edited a couple of times before it settled on the one that was quoted here. The first few versions were highly suggestive that they shut down the thread because of the nature of the posts. Even the warning inside the forum by the moderator hinted at that as the reason. So, while I wasn't around for the first post warning of a BB upgrade, I am fairly sure that the admins decided that now was as a good a time as any because of, not despite, the posts.

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

theyeti

I suspect that they will either adopt a new policy similar to what the Baptist board has, or they will write up and enforce some stricter rules. Maybe then you will be banned. Then again, the "rule breaking" could have nothing to do with civil discourse. I remember not long ago the moderator mentioning something about people using multiple user IDs. Maybe they're checking into that.

theyeti

DNAunion

DNAunion: I think the continued low level of civil discourse is THE reason the ARN board was shut down this time. Perhaps other things played minor roles too - I don't know.

But about the double identity issue. Someone (Scientiae? I can't check now) said in one of his posts - about a week ago - that he was Braur: another anti-IDist poster at ARN. I don't know if he was kidding or serious: his intent was not clear (at least not to me).

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]</p>

Principia

LOL, here we go again. First it was pangloss (Scott Page), now it's Braur.

Braur: I apologize that your good name is smeared by my own.

SC

Myrmecos

There is little doubt in my mind that the ARN board was closed for violations of board rules and not because the I.D.ists were getting their butts kicked. The moderator has made several comments over the past few weeks to this extent, and the quality of the board was taking a nose-dive over the past week.

Having been around for a little while on ARN, it was also obvious to me that the recent accusatory tone of I.D.ists like Leonard was due almost entirely to the goading of Scientiae. I would also add that I agree with Leonard that the attitude of the Infidels crowd is insincere, counter-productive, and generally not acceptable at ARN.

And I'd bet that when ARN starts up again, DNAUnion will be banned.