entrangermercenary1 wrote:
You cannot have anarchism unless all people involved are of the same ilk.
Just as you cannot have capitalism if half of them are commies or communism if half of them are capitalists...so what do you do? You jackboot stomp the lot of them into line with force.

Once humanity evolves then everyone will be beyond such childish matters, many years in the future ofc .
Until such time those who are evolved have to suffer egits like yourself for a hell of a long time.

I blame the 80s and heavy metal. you know there would be a libertarian or a school teacher looking all frumpy then shed be shot with a guitar, let her hair down and show some cleavage

batou wrote:

andyh wrote:
Well you answer the problem yourself

Nobody gives a fuck about your anarchism, because somebody else has a different deffintion and there lies your problem

The only way mankind would evolve to a state where everybody thinks the same is by medical interference, but as long as they think the same as the anarchists thats fine

novum wrote:
I guess he is an intellect with a book in his hand and not a tit in his hand...oh well

entrangermercenary1 wrote:
There is no 'problem'. Just billions of idiots like yourself who think anarchism is majority rule with guns.
I can't even find that definition in the dictionary either, at least mine tallies.

Does everyone think the same in this society? Or in any other society, even the damn fascist ones? No of course not, so why do u insist the only way anarchism would work was if there were no dissenters?
As for your dumb point about a warlord n his cronies coming along and taking an anarchist society's resources .... duh no, like any other they would DEFEND themselves and blow the greedy little wannabe gangstas into oblivion.
Fighting back when someone attacks you is hardly imposing your worldview upon them now is it.
You may want to read up on the CNT n spanish revolution.

Spamfish wrote:
Like I said, he's a borg commie who thinks everyone should think the same

For someone who doesn't give a shit/have the first idea about anarchism you always want to try and bring it up.

As this will be an ongoing problem with new members signing up and then not posting might I suggest a period of lurking 'grace' before they go the same way as the ones that have just been culled?

Ive also found a better spam filter (it replaces the captcha challenge on sign up where you enter the letters/numbers you see)

It will eliminate false sign ups (bots) entirely id say... i think some can and are getting past the google captcha.

No time to do it now but in a week or two perhaps. Well I would have time if the install went smoothly and replaced the captcha just fine but things can go wrong and need time to fix.

Ive tried it elsewhere a few weeks ago and works well, and its free to use.

areyouahuman.com/

That playthru looks like a good idea aye, beats having to squint at weird text that a lot of ppl get wrong anyway

oioioi wrote:
BUMP!

Cull 'em. The ones we know who like to look in & not say much are fine.

But all the many socks in waiting can go to hell imo.

The ones we know were dealt with as a result of this thread previously, they stuck their nose in arrivals, they kept their account, simples. Now I'm asking how long can a new member be a new member without posting before getting the boot?

Personally I see no reason for it to be any great length of time. 72hrs would be my vote.

Yeah that'll do.

why does it make a difference when they post?

If they join up surely in one sense that means they are interested in the site.

But to go and ban someone without posting within the first 72 hours is daft

If, and when they post, and post something that breaks the forum guidelines then yes ban them, but you surely can't ban szomeone for joining a forum and not posting?

dawnbreak wrote: I do basically agree with what you're saying, but we're probably not going to get anyone sensible joining the site from now on. It has been quite some time since this happened.

I wouldn't say do it within three days, but if someone hasn't posted within a couple of weeks then I can see an argument for doing it.

If everyone looks at user 251 for example, I feel quite confident we're not going to get anything sensible from him.

Posters that don't post can't really be considered posters. They're not really in the interests of the community & more than likely have nefarious intent.
If people want to lurk, they can but without the extra privilege of the private areas of the forum.

So we are going to have a join up and post rule now?

Where are the private areas ....I'm a poster and was unaware we had private area's