CENSORED!

[Dante]

Far more likely we'd utilise technology to overcome our newfound weaknesses. Which is more likely, that we'd paddle around in a marshy environment or learn to build better rafts?

Also, the diagram specifies evolution, not atheism. Further, there is no one unifying "atheist ideology."

I'm afraid that third point would need a bit more clarification (in another topic, most likely, though I confess it doesn't really interest me). If it's saying that the cosmos requires that its cause be ongoing in order to prevent its destruction then that seems like little more than assumption to me.

And yes, Curt, those would be GIR and Almighty Tallest Purple.

I was going to use Pinky and the Brain, but that can wait for another time.

[arnoldo]

Far more likely we'd utilise technology to overcome our newfound weaknesses. Which is more likely, that we'd paddle around in a marshy environment or learn to build better rafts?

Given the need for rapid biological changes, some form of genetic manipulation would probably be necessary for humans to adapt to such a radically different water environment . This would require that technology survived after a cataclysmic environmental event. If technology didn’t survive then the long and aimless(?) evolutionary process would determine whether humans will survive. Perhaps in the manner or primitive whales, which appeared to have successfully speciated from terrestrial mammals, humans will convergently evolve. Creationists may scoff that this is even a hypothetical possibility in much the same way the evolution of whales is viewed.

For example, Dr. Fazale Rana, in an article entitled, Explosive Origins of Modern Whales Points to a Creator, writes that primitive whales, according to the evolutionary model, allegedly speciated from land animals within a space of 10 million. Without offering an explanation, Dr Rana states that 10 million years is not enough time for “extensive anatomical and physiological changes” to occur for the transition from a land to aquatic mammal. Additionally Dr. Rana claims that all of the transitional forms of whales co-occur in the fossil record rather than appearing sequentially. Therefore, according to Dr. Rana, the fossil record of whales supports the hypothesis of a Creator.

Also, the diagram specifies evolution, not atheism. Further, there is no one unifying "atheist ideology."

Point taken.

[MrFlibble]

I'm actually getting quite tired of this. You know how long it takes me to write these things? And it's so very rarely worth the effort. I could have been playing minecraft!

I, for one, read your posts with great interest and pleasure, please don't consider them a wasted effort :) Also, I didn't know anything about the evolutionary history of whales, so thanks for giving me the opportunity to learn something new here too

[ErasOmnius]

Yes Dante, I read your posts, as well; and I find them very interesting, and thought-provoking. I like to take what I call the "Angels' Advocate" point of view, to much of what you write.

As far as evolution goes arnoldo, don't worry, evolutionary scientists will always find another 10 or 20 million years of geologic time laying around if they need to explain something away.

[MrFlibble]

As far as evolution goes arnoldo, don't worry, evolutionary scientists will always find another 10 or 20 million years of geologic time laying around if they need to explain something away.

I can only marvel at your casual dismissal of entire scientific theories and ideas. Dante takes his time to produce lengthy posts full of research and facts, and you just handwave them like that. Wow.

[ErasOmnius]

MrFlibble. I do appreciate your points of view, and have always felt you to be fair. The whole 'proof controversy and ErasOmnius', I must say, is really making me think. I must really look inward to see if I am not offering enough proof, or dismissing people ideas out-of-hand. My own friend (Curt) felt that I was dismissive of his calling for a mandatory wage adjustment across Europe and North America. If you and he both feel that I am dismissive, then I may just be, and I will have to change. This 'dismissive' charge against me must simply not be just the rantings of Wolf or Dante's Friend.

Therefore, I thank you for your input.

[Wolf]

Eras: It's called bias. You're not objective. I mean, none of us are, not fully--but you don't even make an effort! In other words, you're willfully blind. Why is it that you take Flibble seriously when I've been saying the same thing for months? Will you stop taking him seriously, too, when you refuse to change and he keeps calling you out? I bet you will. That's the only way you've managed to live in ignorance in the free world for so long.

[ErasOmnius]

Bias? We are all biased. Just as you are biased, we are all biased. We are biased by our life experiences, or lack thereof. But here at the End of the Age of Grace of God for the Gentiles; I could give you all sorts of evidence on moral issues, but you would not believe, nor care to.

I could prove my point over and over, for example, on the subject, for example, as I did in 2010. I could have done so much more forcefully, with an eye on simply winning the argument. But what would it gain me, the life long enmity and super hatred of Dante (a person whose writing I admire), the foaming at the mouth of his Friend, and your stomping around saying that you will not come back until I am fully and permanently banned? Not my 'cup of tea', since I am a nice person. Besides, my friend has asked me to refrain myself from posting on everything, and has asked me to only post on topics in which I have an inherent interest in, or full research on.

[arnoldo]

One of evolution's biggest problems is that a lot of people who think they understand it, don't. Humans (or indeed any creature) are not more likely to generate, for example, webbed fingers in a marshy environment. And because natural selection no longer applies to us, because we have the higher brainmeats, if such a mutation did arise it would not be more likely to be fixed in a population. If anything the most likely result would be that its phenotype would be surgically altered and the geneotype would fade into the background just like any other.

How (or even if) humans will continue to evolve is a subject of some debate. See, natural selection, by definition, is natural. We, as a species, are so artificial that it no longer applies to us. Here's a few examples:

> Our healthcare is such that people who would otherwise not live past infancy are now capable of reaching breeding age, thus maintaining deleterious genes in the population.

> We can travel all over the globe, granting the potential for unprecedented genetic mixing. The smaller the breeding population, the more likely genes are to become fixed in it, and the breeding population right now is huge.

> Our technology has removed practically every natural influence from our lives, from temperature and light to food and security. What do we do when we need to see in the dark? Turn the light on. What do we do to get out of the rain? Build a shelter. What do we do when we feel cold? We wear the skin of another animal. Natural selection takes generations to accomplish what technology manages in weeks.

> Sexual selection (arguably) plays a far stronger role in our species than natural selection. We don't end up with mates who happen to be better able to provide strong offspring, we choose mates depending on a whole slew of factors, from physical attractiveness to child-rearing capability. If webbed fingers arose in a population, how attractive would that be to potential mates?

In other words, the rules no longer apply and all bets are off.

All bets are off because modern humans (at this time) are able to produce technology/tools in order to artificially cope with the environment. The hypothetical scenario about humans undergoing evolutionary change involved the destruction of this ability to produce technology/tools after a worldwide cataclysmic event. Perhaps the loss of knowledge would not be immediate but would take several generations. After several generations any surviving humans perhaps would not be unlike the feral children who have no spoken and written language and are reduced to living a primitive existence. In such a hypothetical scenario natural selection would again determine the shape humanity will take.

As for the whales, timing is particularly tricky. Fossil records are patchy at best, and accurate measurements aren't helped by the fact that when speciation occurs, the species "left behind," as it were, doesn't necessarily disappear.

For example, imagine that ten million years in the future, an alien race discovers our planet without any life on it. Being scientists, the aliens do a bit of digging and find the remains of, say, a coelacanth and a trout. Both species are extant today, but the coelacanth has hardly changed in sixty five million years, while the trout has been around for only twenty million years at the very most. Concluding that the two fish cannot be related because they are both found at the same point in the fossil record would be false. One could reasonably conclude that their relationship was not direct (no trout ever evolved straight from a modern coelacanth), but that doesn't mean that there isn't a connection further back, especially given that all of the "intermediate" species (not a strictly accurate term but it suffices) went extinct a long time ago and would be found far further back in the fossil record.

Consider then that proto-whale species A gives rise to species B, which in turn gives rise to species C. A and B don't go extinct, but continue to live alongside C for a few million years until they are both wiped out because they can't compete with species D. While C did evolve out of B, and previously A, the animals that were around at any one time were not evolving out of each other. Their populations were already distinct by that point. The point about finding concurrent fossils is invalid. This suggests (but does not confirm) that the early whale species were "cousins" rather than direct descendants.

That would certainly explain how the fossil records of proto-whales species A,B,C and D could co-occur. For speciation to occur between A,B,C, and D presumably these groups would have to lose the ability to interbreed with each other and form distinct groups. Modern day humans and chimps are descended from ancestors who allegedly interbreed for some time but eventually stopped doing so. One theory is that environmental barriers arose which isolated these two primate groups allowing speciation to occur. For whale ancestors to speciate it would be difficult to imagine an overt environmental barrier to occur in the ocean but perhaps some other mechanism was involved. Additionally, 10 million years may be more than enough time for a gap to exist between proto-whale A and D. Having favourable mutations along the way would even make a shorter time frame theoretically plausible.

[Dante]

Edit: post deleted? Nothing to reply to, will come back to this.

Re-edit: Alright, what's the big deal with removing my evolution post? I'd rather it not appear solely in arnoldo's quotations.

[MrFlibble]

Okay kids, this thread ain't called "censored" for nothing. The post with profanity and ErasOmnius' reply are hidden from view for now, and it's up to the admins to decide what to do with this. But you should seriously keep yourselves restrained and not stoop down to that level where swearing and profanity are standard means of making an argument. Have some self-respect, all of you.

[Dante]

With respect, Flibble, I'm growing tired of this. Just how much longer are we going to have to put up with this moron?

[Anathema]

I had always assumed that mammals evolved either from ancient reptiles or primitive birds. I learned something today!

Once a cell has a role' date=' it cannot be reversed. That's why cells don't migrate to change purpose, they get broken down and their parts recycled instead.[/quote']

On a very general level, I already knew this, but I've always wondered about one thing. How is it that cancer cells can "travel" from one organ to another?

[MrFlibble]

With respect, Flibble, I'm growing tired of this. Just how much longer are we going to have to put up with this moron?

No one forces you to read ErasOmnius' posts or answer them. And certainly no one forces you to throw profanities at other members simply because you feel like doing it. PRP has always had standards. And I remember the time when Nema, the "Censor of FED2k", kept a close watch at what people were saying to avoid exactly such incidents. You can dislike anyone as much as you please, but there's a certain degree of decency to be kept in any communication.

[Gruntlord6]

No one forces you to read ErasOmnius' posts or answer them. And certainly no one forces you to throw profanities at other members simply because you feel like doing it. PRP has always had standards. And I remember the time when Nema, the "Censor of FED2k", kept a close watch at what people were saying to avoid exactly such incidents. You can dislike anyone as much as you please, but there's a certain degree of decency to be kept in any communication.

As much as no one is forcing him to read or reply, if no one replys people who visit the board will just assume that because we do not debate the facts, whatever he said is right. Thus they constantly try to debate with him, often with little success.

[Dragoon Knight]

No one forces you to read ErasOmnius' posts or answer them. And certainly no one forces you to throw profanities at other members simply because you feel like doing it.

[colour=#005FFF]I'm sorry, but I disagree. There is someone who forces us to read Eras' posts: Eras. Same goes for answering them. As we've explained time and again, nicely and nastily and everywhere in-between. Just because Eras sugar-coats his insults doesn't make them any less real. Yet because he dances around, pretending to be civil, he gets away with it.

There's the letter of the law and then there's the spirit of the law. Eras should have been banned long, long ago.[/colour]

PRP has always had standards. And I remember the time when Nema, the "Censor of FED2k", kept a close watch at what people were saying to avoid exactly such incidents. You can dislike anyone as much as you please, but there's a certain degree of decency to be kept in any communication.

[colour=#005FFF]We want to maintain those standards; everything Dante, Wolf and I have been doing in this forum for the past several months has been aimed towards excising the cancer that has taken root here. You honestly think that swear words are worth deleting a post over, but blatant discrimination based on sexuality and skin colour isn't? While we labour away, being upfront and clear, Eras continues to get his jollies at this forum's expense. He's making a fool of every moderator here, whether you see that or not.[/colour]

[Dante]

No one forces you to read ErasOmnius' posts or answer them. And certainly no one forces you to throw profanities at other members simply because you feel like doing it. PRP has always had standards. And I remember the time when Nema, the "Censor of FED2k", kept a close watch at what people were saying to avoid exactly such incidents. You can dislike anyone as much as you please, but there's a certain degree of decency to be kept in any communication.

I tried decency. Did it work? Did it have any measurable benefit or effect? No. So we're back to vulgarity, an equally fruitless but significantly more satisfying way to conduct this masquerade. And hey, eras has been polluting this place for long enough - the very fact that he's still here indicates the laxity of the rules at the moment - so it's not like I'm making anything worse than it already is. Gruntlord has the right of it, and this game of "I could prove you wrong, I could, but I left the mountains of evidence in my other suit!" grew tiresome a long time ago.

My patience has recently been truncated by what we'll call a series of unfortunate events. eras is persona non grata here. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Lets just get rid of him already, as much as I'll miss having a punching bag, this charade is wearing thin.

(What was that, three metaphors in the mix? Nifty)

Edit: I'll get back to arnoldo later, but for Anathema:

I actually had to look this one up as well, and it turns out I was mistaken about some of the details. If you can trust wikipedia, that is.

Cancer cells degrade their surroundings, weakening membranes and suchlike which would ordinarily prevent cells from wandering around. Once these barriers are sufficiently weakened, cancer cells can be forced into other parts of the body (say pushed into the blood stream) or start infecting adjacent tissues (ovarian cancer can spread to the liver because they're right next to each other). Interestingly though, cancer cells don't tend to "infect" other cell types. If a tumour in the lungs metastasizes to the brain, the tumour in the brain will be comprised of cancerous lung cells.

Further details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastasis

[MrFlibble]

As much as no one is forcing him to read or reply, if no one replys people who visit the board will just assume that because we do not debate the facts, whatever he said is right.

Once again I must dismiss this line of argument. First off, there don't seem to be many people who aren't members that interested in the PRP discussions in the first place. Secondly, when you say that those readers will accept ErasOmnius' statements as true if you do not explain the opposite to them sort of implies that they are incapable of independent judgement. Which makes the whole argument rest on the premise that some obscure readers who are unable to judge for themselves will be mislead by ErasOmnious' posts unless you take action to prevent it. Sounds quite a bit contrived to me.

A more sound version of the argument would have been that if no one contends ErasOmnius' POV people might think the rest of the forum silently agrees with him. Yeah, I'd go with that. But. This does not mean it's OK to throw insults at him, or anyone else for that matter, or get obsessed with "proving" that he has multiple sockpuppet accounts etc. etc. Did I ever say, stop arguing with ErasOmnius? I'm all for sound and reasonable argument. I've learned a lot of new things from the discussions here, and Dante is always willing to share his knowledge at any opportunity. What I said was, be decent. Having vast and superior knowledge and professional authority in a field of scientific knowledge is not an excuse for insulting and humiliating your opponent in a debate. What will those silent visitors who read your posts think of you if you swear like a 4chan regular?

I tried decency. Did it work? Did it have any measurable benefit or effect? No. So we're back to vulgarity, an equally fruitless but significantly more satisfying way to conduct this masquerade.

That's not an excuse. Perhaps being vulgar amuses you personally, but your last insult directed at ErasOmnius offended me no less than him saying that "gay people are sick individuals who must be cured", or that they're "unnatural" (or something along those lines; can't be bothered to check the exact quotes ATM). There are other people reading your posts here, and you really should care what they think or feel when you say things that are potentially offensive. The forum does not exist solely for your personal amusement, you know.

And hey, eras has been polluting this place for long enough - the very fact that he's still here indicates the laxity of the rules at the moment - so it's not like I'm making anything worse than it already is.

Once again, not an excuse. Whatever other people are doing, you should have your own standards. When you say "if it's okay for ErasOmnius, it's okay for me", think of what standard you're setting for yourself. Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi, and vice versa, quod licet bovi non licet Iovi.

Gruntlord has the right of it, and this game of "I could prove you wrong, I could, but I left the mountains of evidence in my other suit!" grew tiresome a long time ago.

Well, ask yourself: if ErasOmnius is incapable of, or unwilling to produce evidence to back up his claims, whose problem is it, his or yours? Maybe he just doesn't care that much to bother himself with doing research and producing evidence? Why should you get upset? If you provide evidence to support your points, and the opposite side doesn't, that means you win that argument, doesn't it?

My patience has recently been truncated by what we'll call a series of unfortunate events. eras is persona non grata here. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Lets just get rid of him already, as much as I'll miss having a punching bag, this charade is wearing thin.

If the admins would ban everyone you just happen to dislike, wouldn't the forum end up as some sort of totalitarian desert?

To sum up, I'll kindly ask all of you to keep yourselves in check and refrain from using foul language and insults. Once again it's an appeal to self-respect, and to the respect of all participating forum members.

BTW, Dante, your post, as I indicated above, is not deleted. It's hidden from view, and of you agree that the part with the insult/profanity is removed, the rest will be restored.

[Dante]

I take it you haven't been with us since the start. Allow me to expand upon this.

Once again I must dismiss this line of argument. First off, there don't seem to be many people who aren't members that interested in the PRP discussions in the first place. Secondly, when you say that those readers will accept ErasOmnius' statements as true if you do not explain the opposite to them sort of implies that they are incapable of independent judgement. Which makes the whole argument rest on the premise that some obscure readers who are unable to judge for themselves will be mislead by ErasOmnious' posts unless you take action to prevent it. Sounds quite a bit contrived to me.

No, it's more that if they see arguments being proposed and not opposed they will not only make a character judgement about the poseter, but also about the silent masses and therefore the membership of the entire board. I for one would rather be convicted of my own crimes than tarred with the same oily brush as eras.

Further, I'd like to remind you that Eliyyahu has already posted at least once that eras and ath made him reluctant to log on. He may not be the only one. He may be the only one who came back. The point stands, however, that allowing eras to act the way he does harms us all.

What I said was, be decent. Having vast and superior knowledge and professional authority in a field of scientific knowledge is not an excuse for insulting and humiliating your opponent in a debate. What will those silent visitors who read your posts think of you if you swear like a 4chan regular?

Ideally, "well, I'd have reacted the same way in that kind of situation." Failing that, "wow, he must have a good reason to break societal norms with such self awareness."

You're making a common mistake. Having some smarts is not an excuse for insulting and humiliating the opposition, and I never said it was. Have you ever seen me say "I have a degree in biology, so just shut the hell up because I know best," or words to that effect?

I have always said that I am perfectly aware of what I am doing, and that what I am doing is considered impolite by the standards of civil society. I used the worst word I know and I did with with care, attention to detail and malice aforethought. Don't think that just because the words are vulgar that they were not chosen with deliberation. In short, neither my knowledge nor the pleasure I get from delivering well crafted put downs are good excuses, and I make no excuses. I act out of frustration because I have no alternative. What you see in carefully scripted syntax is the wild thrashing of someone who has run out of appropriate options and sees no alternative but the inappropriate.

Allow me to reiterate that sentiment a few times, because it's been bubbling at the back of my mind for some time now and I feel the time has come to give it an airing for a bit.

This is not working. You are not working. The moderating team is doing its best and its best has proven inadequate. Edric hasn't the time to be iron-fisted, Andrew would clearly rather not be here, you persistantly call for a return to standards that eras ignores with impunity and I therefore see as wasted effort. The suggestion of a PRP arbiter, while worthy, would be too much time investment for anyone currently on the team. It's been months already, and if the persistant complaints from Wolf, Dragoon and I weren't indication enough that our ire has not dissipated, quieter voices have started to increase their volume. Gruntlord, Lord J, Eliyyahu have all made valuable contributions. But nothing happens. We've complained, we've discussed, we've constantly told eras how he could improve his standing here, we've demanded, we've negotiated, tell me, exactly what other avenue of appropriate expression of ire is left to us? Short of appealing to Gob, which none of us would ever do (some things one just doesn't contemplate), there is nothing left. You've shot down our every attempt. So tell me, why shouldn't I get frustrated? Why shouldn't I get angry? Being decent human beings hasn't worked nearly as well for us as being an ignorant douchebag has for eras, you tell me what conclusion I should draw.

Don't like it? Do something. Ban him, censor him, boot him out of PRP as he was from Fanfiction, I don't care, just get him the hell away from us and, without the itching nastiness to irritate, we'll calm down.

Unless you can think of a better idea? Besides playacting nicely, that is.

If you provide evidence to support your points, and the opposite side doesn't, that means you win that argument, doesn't it?

Tell him that, see if it sinks in.

In conclusion, what I do doesn't help and what you do doesn't help, but at least my way is entertaining. Until you can come up with something that works, this is only going to get worse.

Oh, and no, I'm far too proud to acquiesce to editing of my posts.

[Gruntlord6]

A more sound version of the argument would have been that if no one contends ErasOmnius' POV people might think the rest of the forum silently agrees with him. Yeah, I'd go with that.

Thats exactly what I meant and you know it ........

[ErasOmnius]

The world has changed, and it's just a short trip downhill from here, don't you think ath-? As you can see, I am right, completely right. The world is dividing morally, not economically. Soon, when the dollar and the Euro collapses, almost everyone will be equal economically -- everyone will be equally poor. I think after Obama's re-election in 2012, he might actually use that as a selling point to break the dollar, and cancel those 15 trillion dollars worth of US bonds that have been sold since 1981.

TheCurtOne, you do understand now, don't you? Morally, all of the signs are there, that it is lack of morals in The West, that is causing the whole 'house of cards' to come crumbling down. The so-called wondrous social state that The West has created. Make sure you stay drunk enough, high enough, or sexed up enough (usually depending on one's muscle tone and exercise regimen; don't forget a good hair-cut and trips to the tanning place); not to notice that we don't have a replenishable birth rate. Of course, most people don't even care to even get married any more and have children.

Curt, your attempts in all aspects of your life to introduce compromise into your beliefs about The Book have been met with derision and scorn. You can never be too left-wing morally for your Democratic Party, or even some members of this crowd here. I know it's just a matter of time before you get out of that god-forsaken Democratic Party, as they enshrine their moral leftists views. The national leaders of it only wants you to stand next to your sign from The Truman Years that says "Solidarity" or "Workers Unite". Meanwhile, those same Democratic leaders will install morally liberal judges that will ensure your daughter in a weak moment with her school counselor, can sneak off and abort/kill your grand-child; or pass down an edict forcing your hard-earned tax dollars to pay for the procedure.

This leading to an over-preponderance of older people can only lead to one thing in a society as hypocritically evil as The West's -- euthanasia in the nursing homes and para-hospital centers. They do use a lot (got it right, a space!) of money on health care, and with the life expectanct being over 80 years old now, keeping them alive when there are no young people to pay taxes for their upkeep simply won't do.

The Moral Left has invented so many wondrous things in their own minds that justify their behaviours (I love that 'u', Mr Thomas Jefferson!). Evolution! No one can explain how the eye or the penis (espcially simultaneous with an accepting vagina; Red Queen! Red Queen!) evolved, but let's all just go along for the ride (fits in with the drinking and sleeping around with girls). Does the so-called geologic column exist anywhere on the Earth in just those wondrous layers that we've all been told about? What is the role of 'dark matter' in the formation and creation of the Universe? Does the assumption of radioactive dating take into consideration a stable atmosphere with the exact same pressure and composition of the atmosphere today?

"Name the three tenets of modern philosophy?" "If a tree falls in the woods, does anyone hear it fall?" "What was the capital in 1839 of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies?" "Why is it that the nation of Israel exists only when there are super-powers on the Earth?" These are all great question everyone, now let's answer them!

[Dante]

Quiet eras, the grownups are talking.

[Andrew]

The world has changed, and it's just a short trip downhill from here, don't you think ath-?

Ath is banned for three months.

Also, I'd have to disagree with everything that eras just posted, but don't feel like pointing out flaws, because it is a waste of my time (and I assume others have already pointed it out in other threads, so no need to be repeated).

I did spend maybe an hour last night writing a response to this thread (wasn't long), but by the end I wondered why I was spending so much time on it and didn't bother replying. I'd rather spend that time and energy in other parts of this forum. Rather than something we've been arguing about for months.

EDIT: eras not able to post (but can browse forum) for 2 days. For post that was below this one (baiting), and offtopicness of above post.

B-b-b-but he'll just post with his puppet accounts!

[Dragoon Knight]

B-b-b-but he'll just post with his puppet accounts!

[colour=#005FFF]Please, Andrew; do Wolf and I the credit of not mocking us. I understand that Dante doesn't believe that Eras is sockpuppeting, but no-one can offer any proof that he isn't. The trouble, of course, is that there's nothing decisive to show that he is, because the moderation team doesn't want to look into it. Like your aborted reply, no-one can be bothered.

So until you can, I ask you again: please do not mock us. Whether you meant to or not, it came off as offensive. Thank you.

EDIT: To be balanced, I'd like to thank you for taking at least some action against Eras.[/colour]

[Andrew]

Well, as stated we did look into multiple accounts, and found nothing. Someone could easily sing into each account at a different location (ipaddress), but in order for me to prove that a single person is doing this would involve locating eras in real life and follow him around. I don't have time or money to do this. Even if I had a tool that could locate each ipaddress on google maps, I'm not sure how I'd be able to link to the same person.

I merely put comment in my post because I knew someone would say that silencing eras account would do nothing due to puppet accounts. Sorry that it sounded mockish. I guess we'll have to wait and see if his puppet accounts now become active.