# Deleting banned members



## Poimen (Aug 25, 2005)

I think we need to delete the names of banned members. That way we could all move up in our ranks on the member list.



But maybe you leave them on so that we have reason to fear that the same might happen to us?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 25, 2005)

Uhhhh no!!


----------



## Poimen (Aug 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Uhhhh no!!



Huh? Why not?! 







[Edited on 8-25-2005 by poimen]


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 25, 2005)

I think that if we delete banned members posts (is that what you are getting at?), then some of the conversations won't make sense. That and it sounds very Orwellian!


----------



## Poimen (Aug 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> We can't tell you or we'd have to kil..err...ban you.



Um... ok.


----------



## Poimen (Aug 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I think that if we delete banned members posts (is that what you are getting at?), then some of the conversations won't make sense. That and it sounds very Orwellian!



No I don't want them to delete the posts, just the names from the member list.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Aug 25, 2005)

Wouldn't the two go together?


----------



## gwine (Aug 25, 2005)

I thought I was reading 1984 again. 

Seriously, why would you want to delete banned "members?"


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> I thought I was reading 1984 again.
> 
> Seriously, why would you want to delete banned "members?"



To erase memory of their very existence! 
Muwhahahaha


----------



## gwine (Aug 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by gwine_
> ...



That must be why we don't talk about old what's his name anymore.


----------



## Poimen (Aug 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> I thought I was reading 1984 again.
> 
> Seriously, why would you want to delete banned "members?"



? 

See the first post:

"That way we could all move up in our ranks on the member list."


----------



## alwaysreforming (Aug 25, 2005)

Brother Daniel,

Don't you know that "the last shall be first, and the first last?"


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> Brother Daniel,
> 
> Don't you know that "the last shall be first, and the first last?"



Bummer, I wanted to sit near Andrew.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 25, 2005)

I think that we should begin referring to banned members as "the one who must never be named." That would be cool.


----------



## just_grace (Aug 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Uhhhh no!!



 70 times 7

[Edited on 8-26-2005 by just_grace]


----------



## gwine (Aug 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by gwine_
> ...



But I *like* the number 981.


----------



## turmeric (Aug 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> I think that we should begin referring to banned members as "the one who must never be named." That would be cool.



Those of whom we do not speak...it's so _Village_
We could change the color of their names in the list to (whispering) the bad color!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



I never said I didn't forgive them. We hate banning people; in fact, we do not ban many. Probably less than a dozen since inception. This saddens me. Those whom have been removed were pretty bad.

[Edited on 8-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I think that if we delete banned members posts (is that what you are getting at?), then some of the conversations won't make sense. That and it sounds very Orwellian!



Yeah, kind of like when Stalin would remove individuals who had been purged from official photographs.


----------

