Why We Don't Permit Redacted Docs from People Like DMVP

[.]

Deleting all of Van Pelt's BS and lunacy would be a very bad idea, it would remove most of the context (he's quoted here and there in others' posts) for anyone reading the demolition of his delusional gibberish in the future.

There should be a fairly easy way to remove the filter for "registered user" from the ignore feature.

But, like any time you fiddle with code (like the code that runs this site) that you didn't write yourself, there are usually unexpected consequences, so it might involve some time to iron out any bugs. I say that as someone who has been writing (and often unintentionally screwing up) code (even code I originally wrote) for 45 years.

[webhick]

There should be a fairly easy way to remove the filter for "registered user" from the ignore feature.

I'm sure I could make a minor change to the code which would allow "Anonymous" user onto your ignore list, but it would effectively ignore ALL anonymous users such as anyone else who has ever been banned, as well as anyone posting to the open forum. And then I would have to ensure that this change stays after each and every upgrade. Not ideal. A back-door ban would make more sense. I have a fairly recent backup of the user table, so in theory I can re-insert his record back into Q, set his user permissions for a back-door ban, attach all his old posts to this record and update his post count.

[Burnaby49]

I'd say don't sweat it, way more trouble than its worth. Eventually his posts will either get buried by more recent posts or, since his posts seemed largely to be contained in dedicated threads, they will just disappear whern nobody adds to the thread.

Actively trying to get rid of his posts or thinking up creative ways that allow them to be ignored again might, as has been suggested, just cause problems.

[.]

I'm sure I could make a minor change to the code (...) then I would have to ensure that this change stays after each and every upgrade.

Or, maybe a suggestion to the people who write the phpBB code would do it. Ignoring, but not totally expunging miscreants has probably popped up as something of a problem sometime in the history of board software.

Prodding them can't hurt.

[.]

Eventually his posts will either get buried by more recent posts or, since his posts seemed largely to be contained in dedicated threads, they will just disappear when nobody adds to the thread.

True enough, but that wasn't my point.

Van Pelt usually only gets quoted in snippets in other posts. Anyone in the future who does a search on "redeeming lawful money" or any of his other idiocy (regarding notices of federal tax liens, for instance, then there's his stupid lawsuits, his prior history with the Montana Freemen, etc.) is going to see Q posts in the results. Years later. Reading a thread on Q without his full contributions may not give a full and accurate perspective on how nonsensical he and his rubbish actually are.

Leaving his gibbering intact would probably be a service to future unknown readers. Q has no obligation to do it, but it would be in keeping with the purpose of the site.

[Famspear]

.....Leaving his gibbering intact would probably be a service to future unknown readers. Q has no obligation to do it, but it would be in keeping with the purpose of the site.

I would like to second that.

[Pottapaug1938]

.....Leaving his gibbering intact would probably be a service to future unknown readers. Q has no obligation to do it, but it would be in keeping with the purpose of the site.

I would like to second that.

As would I. No doubt, David will probably continue to rant about his banning, about "Quatlosers", and so on; and with luck some people will come here, out of curiosity, to see what evil people we are. Without David's "Amen Chorus" on his site, some of these people just may realize that the transmission of David's mind stripped most of its gears years ago.

[webhick]

Pffft. My backup is from April. And the lights keep flickering. No manhandling.

[cynicalflyer]

Bravo wserra!

Can this be made a sticky thread at the top of the forum?

[wserra]

Damn, I shouldn't be taking the time to do this. But this may well be the last opportunity I have for several days - no power - and it's too good to pass up.

Someone from Sui with whom I've maintained cordial relations since the couple of years ago when I last posted there emailed me to point out that David has been maintaining a thread in their "Taxation" forum that he calls an "echo chamber" - his version of what has been going on here re: him. Pretty dull stuff, until this post, which begins an unhinged David-and-Harvey circle jerk.

Wserra is scrambling to delete all his posts that have links to private information
...
For one thing it exposes the incompetence of one NY tort attorney to think the FTC complaints will not fly even after removing the posts. Do you actually think I have not been keeping a record of your violations? By the way, in your all-nighter to try cleaning up your indictment you forgot about the blog! I guess you will clean that up when you read this post. I think we have a total of nine counts now. But you continue to lead people to private information Wesley and that may require deleting entire threads

Well, tell me when it's over; I can't bear to look. The crew that's left probably don't know how few remain - nor why they abandoned ship in the first place. And then there's poor Wserra, who probably doesn't even realize he's lost the mainmast.

I find it fascinating how no Quatlude will write a word about Wserra removing nearly all his posts linking to the Libel of Review documents.

And much more.

I did what? Removed my posts about the folks silly enough to use Van Pelt's stuff and get sliced and diced as a result? Y'mean like the first one I found, "Denise Elizabeth" Lam? Or the six more I then found? Or the one a couple of others found and I wrote about, the Sauzeddes? Or the blog entry? Not to mention all the other posts which discuss the above? Are those the things I "removed"?

Needless to say, the reason no one has "written a word" about me deleting that stuff is that neither I nor anyone else deleted a thing. BTW, David, I actually do expect the FTC to come after me over all the complaints - the same day I expect the Green Bay Packers to come after me to play quarterback for them. Move over, Aaron Rodgers!

What a couple of loons.

[Burnaby49]

I find it fascinating how no Quatlude will write a word about Wserra removing nearly all his posts linking to the Libel of Review documents.

Ok, I'll write a word.

Thanks.

[Assessor]

As usual, DMVP's 'evidence' doesn't prove anything.
It proves that someone can write the words, "Refused for Cause" on a piece of paper and scan it.

It also proves that DMVP still takes the whole "name in all caps" thing seriously, even though his 'evidence' uses names in all caps. Sure, those are 'forgeries', in his mind at least. So, what do 'forged' documents prove, then?

What DMVP has done is present the legal equivalent of sticking out your tongue.

Of course, as wserra showed, this legal act of sticking out your tongue had no effect. Well, it did have the effect of getting the 'claims' against Geithner dismissed with prejudice. So, there was no 'default judgement', except in DMVP's own mind.

And certainly none of this proves that "all is forgiven", as DMVP assures us.

At some point, he's going to just scan a discarded candy wrapper (notarised, of course) and present that as 'evidence' that he is the Supreme Ruler of The Universe.

[grixit]

Ok, now i'm worried that wserra is going to end up with a torn ACL. Otoh, i bet he rocks a mean leopard thong on the cover of Sports Illustrated.

[The Observer]

Now David is admitting that he made a mistake about believing that posts were deleted.

I also find it amusing that he has convinced himself that Wes converted Demo into being David's personal moderator.

All in all, just more proof that David is tragically addicted to Quatloos.

[grixit]

That's worse than being addicted to qualudes.