I don't know why he was removed or withdrew.

ETA: Part of the problem is that Lithos did put out a call for hosts. Who answered?

I'm quite willing to have anyone from the freethinker side of this group be above me. In fact, I would prefer it.

So would a lot of others, which is my point.

Any others that come on to be Hosts, I don't mind at all jostling down the list.

With the exception of Lithos, I think all of you have the same powers.

Most importantly, anyone above another in the hierarchy can remove anyone below or add anyone who's posted in the group forum to the bottom of the pile.

There are some things a group host can do that can't be undone by any other host above and below (like locking a thread), but then there are things that can be, like pinning or unpinning a thread. I was just getting ready to test out all that when the beta ended.

Thanks, Bolo.

It could be Lithos at the top level and all the rest of you equal at the second level and still be a hierarchy.

Or it could be Lithos at the top and the rest of you at descending levels one after the other and also still be a hierarchy.

Or a number of other arrangements with each of you at a specific level. For example, it could be Lithos at top level, BB at second level, and everyone else equal at the third level. And so on.

At least that's the way hierarchy is usually defined in software engineering. It's a tree structure with a single node at the top and then branching one or more times at each level going down. So many different specific structures can fit the definition of a hierarchy.

Maybe Lithos can clarify for us what the specific hierarchy is for our hosts.

Edit to add: It seems that the answer is in this description of hosts that's in the "About this Group" page:

Based on that it looks like all hosts have equal powers except for the part about removing another host. So you, BB, can only remove a host who comes below you in the list. Other than that you are an equal to Lithos, at least as the statement reads literally.

Anyone below me I can remove. Anyone above me can remove me.

Also, I must object to this usage of "free thinker".
edit: I'm also uncomfortable with implications that there are 2 opposed sides participating in this forum.

Free thinker is the term used in the statement of purpose in this group.

I would hate to think you're uncomfortable with implications of how this group actually has worked over the years. There are definitely two groups opposed to each others' positions on these particular issues. We agree with each other far more outside this group than we sometimes care to admit, but here we pretty much settle down into two camps.

In the past, this opposition has been marked with rancor. DU3 is here to try and remedy even this divide -- not by reconciling the viewpoints! That will probably never occur. But it is possible to get along as a group that agrees on most things outside this forum while entering onto the friendly field of combat of ideas here. That is an ideal to reach for.

He may have been misguided, but at least he had a sense of humor.
That is a bummer...

He was one of the best. He never failed to post some outrageous speculation whenever things got boring around here. His timing was near perfect.

It's too bad. His comments didn't justify this.

And if showed any support for that supreme nut -Paul- I'm glad its done.

As to hosts all I can say is that here are NO long term posters of the 9/11 variety who are also free-thinkers who are now hosts or, as far as I can tell, ever will be a top-tier host of this group.

The old regime, which was a failure and a minute minority of the members of DU in general is still running this group and it might as well be delisted and done away with.

Just my opinion of course.

The evidence as it stands is that bushco is guilty to some degree of what happened on 9/11 and the hosts of this group afaict, don't believe that fact or are NOT willing to admit that they were wrong.

But if they ever were to admit that they were wrong, now would be a perfect opportunity, eh? I mean, gosh, discuss the idea at least, oh great leaders! LOL.

And what are they guilty of pertaining to 9/11?
Answering these very simple questions will clear up many things and will help further the discussion.

I've tried with you many times. Unfortunatly, a discussion requires a back-and-forth and you never want to give anything. No theories, no answers, no evidence... No nothing except insinuations that anyone that does not believe... Whatever it is you believe, is a bush supporter.

I did not buy anything Spooked bought into but at least he articulated his beliefs and tried to back them up.

Otherwise, I think you explained yourself pretty well. Why not repost it without the personal references?



On edit: I forgot that you can't post in this thread again -- so sorry.

Last Saturday, maddezmom wrote in part, "Does Bushco have a measure of guilt? Sure because I believe they blew off any warnings that Al Qaeda wanted to attack." And you replied in part, "You show a great measure of reliability by accurately describing the incriminating evidence against that most criminal of administrations." Bolo Boffin immediately stated his full agreement with maddezmom.

I'm fairly sure that Ohio Joe has made similar statements. (I haven't seen Lithos and undergroundrailroad express many opinions.)

I therefore find it difficult to credit that "the hosts of this group afaict, don't believe" "that bushco is guilty to some degree of what happened on 9/11."

I've held privately the view that the fastest way to silence someone is to make them a moderator for a message board.

In this case, it may well be that I missed the rollicking good old days. At any rate, I have always thought that they did a good job, even if I was sometimes perplexed by individual decisions. (Given the way DU2 moderation was set up, and people's various posting behaviors, I would expect to be perplexed sometimes even if the moderators shared my interpretations of the rules and were flat-out perfect.)

I know I'd be gone

I just looked at the post for which, it seems, spooked had his posting privileges pulled. Read literally, it seems to say that electing Ron Paul would be a good thing. But I'm not at all sure that is what he meant. Of course there could be some back story.

Obviously I often had a hard time getting on the same page with spooked, but I really appreciate that he has always been willing to try to explain his point of view.

Maybe there's more to the story. It was only a mild endorsement, though clearly against DU rules. Well I don't want to get too off topic, and this subject is a minefield.

But if spooked is wondering whether people here are exchanging high-fives, well, we aren't.

I really don't understand the politics enveloping this forum. What exactly does the term "toombstone" mean? Surely to goodness Spooked hasn't been declared DOA for saying something to the effect that Ron Paul should get the Rethug nomination. I don't know why people can't express themselves the way they want if this site is supposed to represent anything resembling democracy. Also, it would appear that the foxes (that, of course, would be anyone who believes the OC story put out by government) are running this ol' hen house; i.e., they seem to be disproportionately represented here. Does one get banned for voicing such an objection? When I say I don't understand the politics, that's exactly what I mean. Is it considered free speech only when uttered within certain perameters? What are people afraid of? Guess I'm trying to get to the bottom of what comprises free speech here. I'd be grateful for either a hen or a fox to answer but preferably both. And if I haven't asked the right questions, feel free to answer any questions I might have done well to ask. Thanks, guys/gals.

Tombstoned means you are banned from the entire site.

I've not seen Spooked's post but I do not expect that it was in a context of who would win the repug nomination but rather open support for Paul.

As for who is a Host in this Forum, Lithos put out an open call and I responded. It is true that I do not buy into 9/11 trutherism but I also feel no conflict in performing Host duties and still posting my views. I strongly suggest that if you feel any of the Hosts are performing their duties in a manner not fitting, post with links and/or PM's in the H&M Forum here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1240

Hosts cannot delete any posts, only lock them so nothing can be dis-appeared. It is perfectly allowed on DU3 to post those links and/or PM's with the new transparency policy. Hosts are not above scrutiny or critisism. Hosts are open to any comments or opinions you may have of them as long as they fall within the Terms of Service (link to ToS at the bottom of each page) and that goes for anything anyone wants to say about anyone else.

members.

Yes, Spooked has been banned for his promotion of Ron Paul here at DU. Many of us don't think it was called for. Another longtime poster, defendandprotect, lost his posting privileges over chemtrails.

There are limits to how much you can express yourself here, as there are at virtually any message board, and they are all contained in the Terms of Service and Community Standards. The admins have made it clear that anyone who begins to digress onto clearly forbidden topics need to find another website in order to do so.

For myself, I would like to see one situation here. In old DU, a group status meant a safe haven for a particular viewpoint, and the old September 11 forum was never granted a group status because of that. Now "group" only means safe haven if stated in the group's statement of purpose, which you can find in the About This Group page. Creative Speculation doesn't grant safe haven status to any viewpoint here. However, I would like for any poster personally to be welcome and free from mockery and harrassment - that this is a safe haven for people and not viewpoints. If that means a limit to outright mockery of viewpoints, then fine.

No one here should expect for their viewpoint to be free from constructive criticism. Some people may view any criticism as non-constructive, and others may feel everything they say to be constructive criticism. Neither of these positions are true. Hosts are here to help define that line, and I agree we need both sides in the hosting hierarchy to help that.

xkcd's cartoon about "someone on the Internet is wrong" is relevant here. This forum in the past has been eaten up with that sentiment. Perhaps some posters here find certain viewpoints to be laughable. As far as I'm concerned, if you have to repeatedly and insistently explain the joke to the rest of us, you're past constructive criticism and you're into personal attack by proxy.

That sucks.

It's all up to Larry Burks to carry their banner.

You seem to have a sense of humor, so I'll go with that. But it isn't so obvious to me why it's "of course" that "anyone who believes the OC story put out by government" are fairly construed as "foxes" and someone who disagrees with it is a "hen."

(I'm not sure what you mean by the "OC story," but presumably something like this: 19 men hijacked planes and flew three of them into buildings, two of which collapsed from direct and indirect damage rather than controlled demolition, and no one in the U.S. government actively planned the attacks or deliberately acted to permit them. It seems to me that every element of that story, and then some, should be subject to discussion.)

I don't think the politics here are all that complicated. People tend to have a prevailing opinion orientation (fox/hen?!). Separately, people tend to vary in their propensity for open discussion versus tribalism. For instance, see greyl's post above. I think Bolo's response to greyl makes a lot of sense, but I also think all three of us agree that it's important to discuss issues on the merits -- not just to take sides based on our team membership. People who seem interested in discussing issues on the merits tend to be more widely respected than people who seem mostly interested in fanning flames, flinging poo, keeping score, or whatever, regardless of which side they are on.

spooked911 is a great example. He disagrees so utterly with many, many of the posters here -- even many whom you might construe as on the same side -- that he and his critics, including me, sometimes speculated out loud about what the disagreements were 'really' about. Nevertheless, it's always apparent that spooked takes the issues seriously, is willing to talk seriously about them, and isn't predisposed to attack people simply for disagreeing. That's why he had (still has, I think) so much support as a host.

As for what it takes to get banned around here, that might be complicated; in general, it isn't all that easy, but do read the terms of service (and the comments by Bolo and Joe). DU is not intended to be a bastion of "free speech" in the abstract, but neither does it enforce mindless conformity or subservience to the admins.

I have to have a sense of humor; else, I'd go quite mad. It seems that my mind doesn't work like most people's do--a mixed blessing to be sure. Opinions which fly in the face of my own (arrived at after due consideration) are quickly forgotten. I couldn't even imagine writing to any of the leaders from this or any other board to say that a published opinion contrary to mine should undergo examination for deletion. I truly think that to be too absurd to even contemplate. I'd choose to let it ride. If, however, I find to my utter dismay that the same opinion is voiced again and again, I might just give it a response--but that would be the extent of my horror, disgust, disconbobulation, or other negative feeling--and my participation. There is one reason for censorship--and only one--fear of authority. And make no mistake about it, I believe that many of these boards are under threat--veiled or otherwise. Just enough tolerated to be seen by some as the presence of some modicum of free speech but not enough to truly make it so. If I'm wrong (HORRORS!), I should be able to get some idea by lurking about some of the Rethug sites to determine what sorts of things are being banned there. Might be an intereting exercise if only I could develop a stomach of iron.

I think more than censoring opinions it would be better to ensure that we all separate the opinion from the person. You're an idiot to think as you do is clearly verboten. I find some of the ideas you have proposed to be idiotic; e.g., (list examples).--quite acceptable. I mean who among us has not come up with ideas that others think are idiotic; however, such ideas don't make the person coming up with them an idiot. Attack the idea and not the person, said she who's certainly at some point been guilty of non-compliance. I see a host cracking down on that sort of the thing--and believe me, if I knew that each and every time I pulled such a boner I'd be getting my ears pinned back, I'd be scrutinizing my words before posting.

But I couldn't imagine censoring an idea except in my own mind. I'm censoring all the time but I do so object when others censor on behalf of "a group." Now before anyone gets their knickers in a knot, let me assure each and everyone of you that I KNOW this makes me the odd "man" out--which is, perhaps, why I don't say too terribly much (as a rule). I've just never been a "group" person. So one thing is patently clear to me that I'm far too permissive to ever qualify as a host either here or on any other board--not that I was asked may I hasten to add--I'm just admitting to knowing my limitations.

As for the hens and the foxes. I'm a bonafide hen who believes (cannot prove) that 911 was an inside job, so quite naturally anyone who disagrees with that belief must by my definition be a fox. But lest anyone here take exception, I'd be the first to admit that foxes are far cuter than hens--although a might more dangerous, don't you think? And for those extraordinary few who can't, won't, daren't come down on either side of the debate--well, maybe, just maybe they are the really wise ones cuz let's face it, who among us can say we have the evidence. We don't. That being said, I make decisions every single day without ALL the FACTS. I can never have ALL the FACTS. Pieces of the puzzle are always missing, so what we generally do is hedge our bets to make the best decisions with the information we have on hand.

And that's what I've done with 911. Because I have absolutely no forensic evidence in hand (nor does anybody else in the general public), I have to dig deep into the U.S. as a whole. I have to look at its history, its methods of "persuasion"; its media; its laws; its government; its justice system; its inner cities; its disenfranchised; its sick; its treatment of third world countries; its treatment of its captors; its treatment of countries from which it wants resources; its willingness to abandon its own people in order to serve the super-rich who go to third world countries for cheap labour; its willingness to go along with globalization which means the people of this and other "democratic" nations will soon be working for peanuts. I look at all these various factions and how the ruling elite deal with them. And what I see is not at all pretty. Three thousand plus lives lost in 911 compared to the millions who have suffered as a result of U.S. policy within and without the U.S. and it is without any hesitation that I say it is highly likely 911 was an inside job. Prove it? Can't. However, there is no doubt in my own mind that the odds are very, very much in my favour. And in the absence of hard evidence, there we be. Engage in some serious, courageous introspection and the lights will appear. And lest you think I'm singling out the U.S. for derision, I am not. All of our so-called democratic countries can take its fair share of the brunt. Until S. Harper became P.M. we in Canada did not go for god, flag and country thing. We were extremely introspective. But now, a la the U.S., we've got the flag flying and we hear Harper invoking god to bless us. And I ask whatever for? What makes us so special? That's rhetorical. I don't feel for any country. I feel for people--regular, everyday people who hurt and bleed as I do--who love their kids every bit as much as I love mine. Countries are for those who would wield power and get their people to obliterate others in the name of the homeland but only for the GOOD of the ruling elite . What utter rubbish!!

And while I may disagree with you foxes, I like to believe that I know where you're coming from and therefore hold no grudges--although there was a time when I did.

You've been kind in answering my questions so I thank you for that. Cheers all!!

I've definitely had idiotic ideas. Separating the idea from the person is certainly a good idea for DU and many other discussion settings.

You write, "You're an idiot to think as you do is clearly verboten," but I can't tell whether you mean that you think it's acceptable to censor personal attacks, or not. I think that it is.

As for the merits of censoring posts about, say, whether Mitt Romney would make one heck of a president -- I think millions of people think he would, and I have no desire to censor them, but I don't think they have any particular right to state that opinion on this particular board. I think the board can set whatever content restrictions it wants.

I think that knowledge is always provisional, so any opinions that I express about 9/11 are provisional. Some are more provisional than others. Frankly, I think that anyone with any sense doesn't merely come down on one side of the debate -- because there is more than one debate!

I don't follow the reasoning. If the point is that people in power often don't mind hurting innocents, I certainly agree with that. But I think there are lots of things that have killed three thousand people or more that weren't inside jobs.

"Hens" often accuse "foxes" of being unwilling to believe (or to admit) that our leaders would do such a thing. It always puzzles me: I thought the question was whether they did do it, not whether they "would."

It's good to value people more than countries.

I'm not necessarily convinced that you know where I am coming from, but that's OK. I respect your civility regardless. Happy New Year!

OTOH - "You write, "You're an idiot to think as you do is clearly verboten," but I can't tell whether you mean that you think it's acceptable to censor personal attacks, or not. I think that it is."

AQ - "Attack the idea and not the person, said she who's certainly at some point been guilty of non-compliance. I see a host cracking down on that sort of the thing...."

--so, yes, I very much agree that attacking a person should be censored. Come to think of it, I just received a personal message (not you nor anyone else with whom I have ever shared words with on this or any other thread) sent me a rather nasty note suggesting in the very strongest of terms that I withdraw myself from the gene pool. I was somewhat taken back but amused at the same time - Who does that sort of thing? Besides, he's far too late--my genes have already been passed on. Oh, oh, I can hear him now, "WTF"!!!!!!



You're absolutely right, particularly given your example, Mitt Romney - or any of the current batch of Rethug reprobates. However, having said that, I think it's quite possible (if not probable) that there could come a time when a Republican candidate might be better option over a Democrat. I've never voted along party lines. In Canada, you can oftentimes see people switch from one party to another to another. We never declare what we are Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green for that reason and because a long time back we believed our vote was sacred and was not to be disclosed to anyone. There was a time when even husband and wife would not declare to each other which way they were going to vote. But in general, I don't have a good view of political parties either here or in the States, but I'll spare you the details.

OTOH " don't follow the reasoning. If the point is that people in power often don't mind hurting innocents, I certainly agree with that. But I think there are lots of things that have killed three thousand people or more that weren't inside jobs. "

Guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. It is a mindset of which I speak. The millions I came up with are the result of ruined lives (and by extension familes) of incarcerated people (Prisons are an industry!!! Pure capitalism with no concern for democracy or justice) in for marijuana is a travesty, exceedingly political, and has nothing to do with the characteristics of marijuana, ESPECIALLY vis-a-vis alcohol. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye. Then take the millions who go without benefit of medical care and medicine because they can't afford it and those who can afford it only because their work covers them but after that they are finished because they can't afford the premiums. Your system (and our soon to be system if Harper has his way) is profit for sickness which in a civilized country should just never be). People are dying in the U.S. all the time because of non-existent health care for those without the $$$$. When an administration allows its people to be unnecessarily incarcerated and left dying and/or in great pain, you have an administration that would not hesitate to sacrifice 3000 lives for the sake of shoring up the war machine. None whatever.

The injustices that lie within the U.S. are so egregious. That by extrapolation is a strong indication to me that people are not uppermost in the minds of the ruling classes. People are dispensable. That the U.S. and yes, the U.K. would send its young men and women to war on a whim (911 or not they had no proof of anything, especially in light of Bushco declaring they couldn't possibly have seen this coming and yet they claim to have solved the mystery in a mere matter of hours and days--completely and totally unbelieavable to me). Four thousand of some of your best have died--and for what? Again, people are dispensable so long as money can be made. Big money. Humungous amounts of money.

Torture admitted to and would do again - People are dispensable. There are contractors involved. Sadism at its possible worst We in Canada were a little sneakier cuz we took one of ours knowing full well we had nothing on him and turned him over to the U.S. (and why? because the U.S. wanted him, that's why) who in turn turned him over to Syria where he was systematically tortured. Oh, that was a winner. So, again, I'm not toting my country up as being the paragon of virtue. Ha! That would be the frosty Friday. In fact, we're getting closer to your system with every minute that our P.M. remains in office. And I don't like what I see coming down the pike in that regard.

Your country has systematically gone into other countries stirring up whatever and in whatever way necessary to get what capitalism wants. Your country and that of the U.K., and a few others of the Willing have killed and maimed well over 1 MILLION Iraqis in order that you may bring them democracy. People are dispensable for the right cause--the cause of runaway Capitalism.

So a mere 3,000 people on 911--3,000 more than either you or I could ever possibly condone would, to the administration, mean zilch. It's a hard pill to swallow which is precisely why the people of the U.S. are not willing to do the swallowing. And I can in many ways understand that. I have spent a lot of time in the U.S. and I can tell you that I never met a Yank I didn't like--as hosts--the best. Of course had I met all of you, you wouldn't come out any better than people in any other country including my own. Guess I got really lucky. But to a person, had I posed the idea that their ruling elite could sacrifice 3000 people on U.S. soil so that war could commence, they'd have told me I had rocks in my head (if that, indeed, was what I could call it!). And just why couldn't they suppose their government could do such a thing? Because they themselves couldn't relate in any way whatever. But they are starting to piece things together. They're starting to reflect that maybe, just maybe, the U.S. is really no better than a lot of countries out there--that their ruling classes are exactly the same as all ruling classes. The ruling classes think differently--and can never be mistaken for people with empathy for their fellow man; e.g., Everyman from EveryCountry.

And finally, you can check this out if ever you cared to (or perhaps already have). Democracy is anethema to the ruling classes. Democracy does not work for them which is why we are increasingly going to see it dwindle down to nothing.

As for whether "they" are capable of pulling a 911 off or whether "they" did pull it off, we may never know until a full investigation can be launched by independent parties (choosing that group will be a daunting if not impossible task in and of itself).

This debate can go on forever and day and neither side can claim that it is right. All I have ever maintained is that I BELIEVE that Bushco was responsible in large part for 911 and as a betting person, I believe that I (among others) have nailed it.

Proof? None, Zilch, Zippo - but then the "foxes" have none either.

Whether we agree or disagree, I can honestly say that I've enjoyed this exchange. And to show you just how vulnerable I can make myself......the following............... There is not a lot that I am adamant about. I generally see lots of gray areas within which lots of different shades.............so I can be persuaded especially when someone can show me a gray I haven't seen before. But on this 911 thing, I find myself being so adamant, I sometimes can't believe just how adamant I am. I am wellllllllll ADAMANT!!!

By which, obviously, I mean not so much.

Yeah, I don't really understand the mindset of someone who would send a message like the one you describe. I can, and do, totally lose my temper, but not in that exact way.

Yes, certainly a particular Republican could be preferable to a Democrat. I even remember Daily Kos endorsing a Republican over a (corrupt) Democrat back in 2008; I'm not sure how DU handled that.

I think many among the ruling classes do just fine under democracy -- which typically gives them a lot of room to do as they wish -- but of course there are always some who intend to do even better.

I broadly (not in every detail) agree with Nuclear Unicorn's comments in another thread: even if one stipulates that the Bush administration would cheerfully have sacrificed 3,000 Americans in order to drum up support for war, the details don't make a lot of sense. As long as they're cleverly blowing up buildings, why not frame a few Iraqis, at least? It seems more like a drunken first draft of a thriller plot than an actual cynical ploy.

OK. But I still don't know why. I'm still stuck on the divide between "would" do it and "did" do it, and most of the reasons people have offered me for believing in "did" are... well, unconvincing to me. So, there, I'm adamant too. But I like to think it's a pretty soft sort of adamant.

DU3 has amazing transparency compared to DU2.

As an example, we now can see why a member's posting privileges were revoked, and we now have access to the post(s) involved.

As far as Spooked911 is concerned, he did not simply state that Ron Paul should get the gop nomination, he actually said that he thinks that it would be a good thing if Ron Paul were elected:

DU does have some Terms of Service rules, and, a major one is that we support Democratic candidates.

Anyone who would think that it would be preferable for Ron Paul to win the next presidential election has taken a wrong turn on the internet, imo.

I'm seeing evidence for a lot more covert Ron Paul support here at DU. Spooked's problem appears to be that he was too honest about his overall lukewarm support for Paul. And I doubt he knew the extent of the hideous rhetoric on display in the Ron Paul newsletters. Of course, I could be wrong about that.

In my opinion, both of these situations were overkill. There, I said it. Defend maybe should have been blocked from Creative Speculation for a month. Spooked's post could have been sent to a jury and hidden that way - and if not hidden, then DU3 would have spoken on the level of Ron Paul support we can tolerate. Both these things would have helped the problem without outright banning. If they persisted after that, then further steps could have been taken.

Also, I think the DU3 TOS is clearer than it was on DU2. Both members were guilty of TOS violations, as far as I can see.

Interesting thread in H&M:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124017568

I think this explains (somewhat) the thinking on TOS violations.

I think it isn't so clear what that post is intended to mean, especially when spooked made a post one minute later in which he said that Paul's "policies would hurt people." He may have meant, not so much that it would be a good thing for Paul to win, but that if Paul did win, these are two respects in which it would be good -- silver linings, so to speak.

That said, I poked around a bit and found a thread from the preceding week by spooked titled, "If this is true, I can't see how I can vote for Obama in November 2012." That doesn't really prove that he intended to endorse Ron Paul, but at least it creates a context in which he would be less likely to get the benefit of the doubt.

(As for me, I agree with you: I'm not a Ron Paul admirer at all. Yes, it's refreshing to have an anti-war voice in Republican debates, but even there he seems to be basically a paranoid isolationist, not something I relish in a leader.)

So there's more context to that statement. Hmm.

I can see what you are saying about the post that got him banned. Since he is a long-term member, I suspect that the admins did some researching of their own.

I really do understand what you're saying, Grateful - rules are rules (as reflected in Terms of Service). All I'm saying is that while I must obey those rules IF I wish to engage in discussions, I still disagree with them. But, the choice still remains with the individual--obey or leave.

For now I choose to obey. And just so you know, I'm such an iconoclast that you guys must be real good at what you do else I'd have been long gone. I do hope, however, that if the time comes when I can no longer contain myself that I will have the good grace to remove myself before others must remove me.

Oh, I'm not sure if I actually asked the question I've been wanting to; namely,


does tombstone mean FOREVER?

Thx.

I am aware of a few instances where members were permitted to return, but largely, they seem to be forever.

Thanks for the post! Sounds like you got what I was trying to say.

Just had to ask Why?

HuH?

I've only got one person on that list for me, and it's nobody who posts here in Creative Speculation. Maybe a glitch?

?

Very odd. Post something about it in Meta and I'll confirm. I don't have you or any other CS poster on Ignore, mail or full.

I did reach out to those who had first had the honor when it was temporary. I also wanted 6, but had to remove Spooked because he was tombstoned. (Which happened about 40 minutes after I made him a host) My guess for that was due to his apparent posting of support for Ron Paul, but that is a speculation based purely on timing (which I guess is appropriate for this forum.) I had held off adding another person in case Spooked returned.

However, that does not look like it is to be the case... So, I would like someone who would complement the hosts and not be an echo. Again, someone of about 1000+ posts and someone who has a fairly clean posting record.

I looked at Spooked's profile, and he was definitely banned for posting about his support for Ron Paul.

Sounds like you want a relatively new member (someone of about 1000+ posts)? If not, please see my PM concerning this.

Thanks again, Lithos.

Did you get the email thru the new DU email system?

It might be that the PM's weren't received?

with everything else that has been happening.....NDAA, etc....

On edit: I also think that the other hosts are good (just in case this post could have been misinterpreted). I wanted to see both sides represented, however, and I think eomer will do an excellent job.