A Note on the IIDB Situation

There are many reasons why I didn’t want to write this post. Unfortunately, they are outweighed by the reasons why I did have to write it. A serious wrong has been done to a friend of mine, a once-thriving atheist community has been mortally wounded by an unaccountable few whose actions reflect poorly on the freethought movement, and I fear that if I don’t report on this matter, those same few may erase the fact of its occurrence from history. I detest politics, gossip, and drama, and alas, this post contains all three, but these things have to be said.

Here’s my conclusion, and if you read nothing else of this post, read this:

So long as the current management persists, I will no longer be supporting the Internet Infidels organization (www.infidels.org). I will also no longer participate in or support the Internet Infidels discussion board (www.iidb.org). I strongly recommend that all my readers do likewise.

If you’re still reading and are interested in the gory details, I’ll try to summarize what brought me to this point.

The Internet Infidels organization, and secondarily the IIDB, is owned and run by a Board of Directors. In November 2005, the Board voted to approve the addition of a new member: Janice Rael, a.k.a. “EverLastingGodStopper”, the president of the Delaware Valley chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.* (Full disclosure: Janice is a personal friend of mine.) In December 2006, she became the Board’s official PR representative and their liaison to the larger atheist and freethought community, representing Internet Infidels at conferences and other events, organizing fundraising drives, and soliciting donors to help support the II.

Consistent with her mission of helping IIDB grow and reaching out to former and prospective members, in early October 2007 Janice raised the issue of whether the IIDB should allow theists to act as moderators of its forums, or whether it should seek to have an all-atheist staff consistent with its mission of defending metaphysical naturalism. This was a perennial hot-button issue for the IIDB, and Janice’s bringing it back up was not well received by some members of the Board.

In the meantime, conditions were deteriorating at IIDB, which had recently taken on several new moderators who were criticized as being overzealous and inconsistent in the enforcement of forum rules. Janice felt (correctly, I believe) that this issue reflected on II’s public image, and that as their PR rep, she had the right to suggest some policy changes that would improve matters. These suggestions drew a heated response from fellow Board member Michael Moore (not that Michael Moore), a.k.a. “The Other Michael”, who was the Board of Directors’ official liaison to the IIDB and felt that these suggestions were “intruding on his turf”. When the issue was not addressed and Janice persisted in bringing it up, Moore made a motion to have her expelled from the Board.

This motion was seconded by Scott Wittman, the Board’s president, and drew enough affirmative votes to succeed, probably thanks to residual ill will over the theist moderator issue. Another issue was some derogatory comments Janice had made on a separate, private forum some months prior expressing unhappiness with IIDB moderation. I haven’t seen these specific comments, so I can’t pass judgment on them. In her defense, a personal friend and longtime fellow activist, Clark Adams, had recently committed suicide. (Clark was also a former president of the II Board.)

Janice was offline during these events and didn’t find out about the vote until it had already taken place. She’s since said that she would have been willing to resign if they had approached her about it. When she sorrowfully announced on IIDB that she had been removed from her position on the Board, the remaining members, in a stroke of supreme spite, banned her from IIDB altogether for “revealing confidential information” about Board proceedings – despite the fact that her change of status was already publicly visible on her user profile. (Here’s Janice’s own timeline of all these events. I’d present the II Board’s version of events if I could, but they haven’t provided one.)

When these events were discovered on IIDB, it set off a firestorm of criticism. This was not just because Janice was one of IIDB’s best-known and most active members, but because many IIDB administrators and moderates were themselves not told about the Board’s sudden action and could not explain what had happened or why. Making things more explosive, the Board and the IIDB administrators reacted to the community’s fury in the worst imaginable way – remaining tight-lipped about events, making a few vague and jargon-heavy public statements, and clamping down on dissent by moving or deleting dozens of angry posts. One IIDB administrator, Spherical Time, was demoted for his support of Janice; the Board claimed that this was due to a repeated history of insubordination, although he had only been made an administrator eleven days prior.

As of this writing, literally hundreds of veteran IIDB users have left to seek other forums, numerous moderators and administrators have resigned in protest, and a petition demanding The Other Michael’s resignation is running approximately 20-to-1 in support. The Board continues to be hostile and intransigent; thus far, their only response has been to assert their authority and claim (correctly) that IIDB is private property and therefore they can treat its users any way they wish. A recent announcement disturbingly escalated their demands for loyalty and obedience among the remaining users:

Anyone at IIDB (staff or not) needs to act to support II’s goals or at least act in a neutral fashion that doesn’t interfere with the reason for II Inc existing.

I’d like to make it clear that this is not a factioning of the freethought community; we are not splitting into sects. What has happened, instead, is a mass community revolt against an unaccountable few who have unconscionably abused their power. Even setting aside the validity of Janice’s banning, the Board’s subsequent behavior has justified every complaint ever raised about hostile and arbitrary moderation at IIDB. And the Board’s secretive and defensive reaction implies that they seem more interested in asserting their own power than in truly helping to build a freethought community by being responsive to the wishes of that community’s participants.

I’m greatly saddened and dismayed by all of this. I’ve been a longtime member of IIDB, and I considered it a wonderful and informative forum for atheists and freethinkers of all stripes, but it seems the Board of Directors is uninterested in any of that and is doing their best to run it into the ground. In the current climate, absent a dramatic change in management or policy, I will no longer participate. I’ve donated money in the past to support its upkeep, but I will no longer do that either.

If you’re seeking a new source of atheist community, I recommend either Rants ‘n Raves or Freethought Forum. Both seem like promising boards and both have seen an influx of disgruntled IIDB members. I’ve registered at both and may check in from time to time. A grassroots effort is also underway to buy control of IIDB from the II Board, but success seems unlikely. I’ll keep this thread updated with new information as it becomes available to me.

* Lest anyone have reason to doubt Janice’s commitment to the freethought community, she is also on the board of directors for the Secular Coalition for America, the board of directors for the Atheist Alliance International, and the vice-president of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, in addition to her work at DVAU.

You Got Your Ideology in My Atheism!
Atlas Shrugged: The Craft of Not Acting
Atlas Shrugged: Bring Me a New Black Guy
Why Atheism Is a Force for Good
About Adam Lee

Adam Lee is an atheist writer and speaker living in New York City. His new novel, City of Light, is available in paperback and e-book. Read his full bio, or follow him on Twitter.

  • http://www.daylightatheism.org/ Ebonmuse

    I’d like to add in a postscript that if any member of the II Board of Directors disagrees with my characterization of events, they’re welcome to provide evidence supporting an alternative explanation for any of this. I’ll gladly retract any part of this post that they can prove to be incorrect.

    Also, on an unrelated note, I’ve been asked to let my readers know about an event in the Philadelphia area this weekend that might interest them:


    DVAU Program Meeting Event:
    Saturday November 10, 2007, 1pm-2pm
    Speaker: Dr. Robert B. Eckhardt, Ph.D., Professor of Developmental Genetics and Evolutionary Morphology
    Topic: Linnaean taxonomy, the Christian Trinity, and Paranormal State: Faith-based challenges to Scientific Understanding

    Location: Philadelphia Ethical Society Building, 1906 Rittenhouse Square, Philadelphia, PA 19103

    The Delaware Valley Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State is proud to present a talk from Dr. Robert Eckhardt, Professor of Developmental Genetics and Evolutionary Morphology, Department of Kinesiology, College of Health and Human Development in addition to the Center for Developmental and Health Genetics and Intercollege Graduate Program in Genetics at Penn State. Dr. Eckhardt will discuss the creationist threat to science education. Dr. Eckhardt was involved in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District lawsuit when the Dover school board mandated the teaching of “intelligent design” doctrine in public schools.

    Dr. Eckhardt is also a prolific writer whose work has been published in such peer-reviewed publications as the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.

    Light refreshments will follow the meeting.

    For more information, call DVAU President Janice Rael at 856-863-3061 or email jrael @ comcast.net.

  • http://spaninquis.wordpress.com/ Spanish Inquisitor

    One other thing. It is possible to correct the problem at IIDB. Most are in agreement that the first thing that needs to be done is get rid of The Other Michael. There is currently a petition floating on a thread asking everyone to sign. There presently are 278 signatures (digital, or course) which if you are a member, you can see here:


    There are probably a lot of members who read this, who might not log in much, so if you are one, go to that link and sign the petition if you are inclined to do so.

    That may not fix things completely, because some internal policies would need to change, but it would be a start. Charitable corporations are not democracies, but a well thought out policy could make the discussion board as close to one as possible.

  • Stacey Melissa

    Hi Ebonmuse – That leaked statement from Michael was not official. It was posted first in the Moderator Conference Room, where it was universally criticized by the mods and admins who resigned in protest, by the mods and admins who stuck around anyway, and by anyone else who saw it after it was leaked. Michael and the rest of the BoD listened to our criticism and decided not to officially post it. Instead, a committee of mods and admins wrote a totally new statement. That statement was evaluated by the BoD at a special meeting last night. They approved, put their signature to it, and it was posted just in the last few minutes, here – official, and for everyone to see. I think you’ll like the real, official statement much better.

    I don’t have the information or authority to supply the BoD version of events (which has much more detail than Janice’s version, even with what little I know), nor do I have the time right now to supply the detailed insight of a moderator who worked alongside Janice for a year. But as just such a moderator, I can say that the information I do have (and it’s more than most of my fellow mods have), I can corroborate the BoD’s stated reasons for removing her, banning her, and maintaining the ban. As much as I like Janice, I still think the BoD was completely justified (legally and ethically) in the actions they took against her. Where they screwed up was with the poor communication in the aftermath. That’s something I think can be fixed, and we’ve got some dedicated IIDBers working hard to fix the communication channels.

    Stacey Melissa
    IIDB Moderator for Positive Atheism & Secular Activism, and Freethought Humor

  • http://www.daylightatheism.org/ Ebonmuse

    Hi Stacey,

    Thanks for the correction regarding that announcement. I’m glad to see the Board ultimately decided not to go with it, and I do think the new announcement is much better. It’s a good thing to see that it acknowledges the existence of IIDB as a community and not just a bothersome adjunct to the main II site. These are hopeful steps.

    However, I remain concerned that this statement doesn’t describe any specific actions which the Board plans to take. Perhaps that’s because that decision is still being made. But as one commenter pointed out in the response thread, it’s too early to tell if the attitude which led up to this whole affair still exists. In particular, I’ve seen no acknowledgement of fault from The Other Michael, nor any statement from any other Board member that anything he said or did was the least bit out of line. (The drastic rewriting of this statement, as compared to the one he originally wrote, would seem to indicate that, even if nothing else did.) I’d like to see how this issue is going to be handled, if at all. If all we get is assurances that this won’t happen again, with no corresponding change in policy or Board membership, I think that would severely undermine the praiseworthy sentiments this statement has expressed.

    As far as the specific reasons regarding Janice’s banning, as I’ve said before: I can’t make decisions based on evidence I don’t have. Janice has presented her side of the story; the Board has simply said, “We’re not going to tell you why she was banned, but there are good reasons, trust us.” Sorry, that’s not good enough for me. If only one side in a debate is willing to present evidence, I have little choice but to believe that side.

    Speaking for myself, if I’m going to return to IIDB, at the very least I’d want to see a full and detailed account of precisely why she was banned and the events that led up to that decision. (In particular, I still see no justification for her banning from the message board, as opposed to her removal from the Board of Directors.) Any truly confidential information can be summarized or redacted. If the Board doesn’t provide anything like this, then I think I’d be forced to conclude that the secretive and autocratic attitude which led to her banning is still fully intact.

  • Alex Weaver

    Wow, you’re easy to please. If I were a member of the IIDB I wouldn’t touch it again without Janice’s banning being reversed with an apology, or evidence of additional and compelling circumstances not present in her version of events being made public.

    Well, I spoke too soon.

    thus far, their only response has been to assert their authority and claim (correctly) that IIDB is private property and therefore they can treat its users any way they wish

    This statement is true. It is also completely irrelevant to whether or not their actions are blameworthy (as opposed to prosecutable). The belief that “I can” is an appropriate or relevant response to “you shouldn’t” is essentially the belief that “might makes right” and I refuse to associate myself with people who think (I use the term loosely) this way.

  • Alex Weaver

    Full disclosure: I’ve had extensive personal experience with people who run online communities with little if any concern for the opinions or interests of anyone other than the people actually doing the running. So far, as described this fits the pattern perfectly.

  • http://www.iidb.org RBH

    However, I remain concerned that this statement doesn’t describe any specific actions which the Board plans to take. Perhaps that’s because that decision is still being made.

    The next step, with some specific actions, is outlined here, and sketches the partial separation of the management of IIDB from the Board of Directors of Internet Infidels, Inc. The separation is not total — Internet Infidels, Inc., owns IIDB, as you note.

    Further specific actions are not in the BoD’s purview, but are up to the Administrators, Moderators, and posters of IIDB. The Administrators and Moderators are right now working out mechanisms for increasing input and participation (and therefore influence) of the IIDB community in IIDB’s operation.

    I have participated in several social change movements, among them the takeover of the Democratic Party in Minnesota by the anti-war movement in the 1960s, the founding of the American Indian Movement (AIM) also in the 1960s, and the shift from a single-sex to coeducational college at which I was a faculty member in the early 1970s, I learned that social change doesn’t come easily, requires a helluva lot of work on the part of a lot of people, and takes time and a great deal of patience. I also learned that those who stand on the sidelines and snipe are rarely part of the solution. That’s not snark; it’s a plain descriptive statement.

    Some genuinely good people, moderators and administrators and posters, went through a very tough time for two weeks, and came out the other side with a worthwhile change in the management of IIDB. That was worth the stress.


  • Janice Rael

    I agree that change does not come easily. Some people seem quite resistant to it. This is unfortunate in a time when atheists have achieved critical mass and are making strides toward unity.

  • lpetrich

    It seems to me that the banning of ELGS from IIDB was for a rather hairsplittingly technical offense, for revealing that she had been ousted from II’s BoD before that BoD made an official announcement to that effect. She announced her demotion after its occurrence was inadvertently leaked by the change of her IIDB status from “II Officer” to ordinary user; the BoD had not even told her to shut up about it until they could issue a public statement about it.

    The Other Michael’s subsequent statements, both leaked and public, were far from reassuring; to many people, they seemed condescending, disrespectful, of dubious relevance, rambling, and narcissistic. Several administrators and moderators have resigned, and a large number of ordinary users have requested that TOM step down, with some of them boycotting IIDB and even getting self-banned from it.

    And in addition to what Ebonmuse mentioned, there is the Heathen Hangout, Richard Dawkins site, the Rational Response Squad, the Atheist Forums, the Atheist Network, the Raving Atheists, the James Rando Educational Foundation, etc.

    Though the favorite destinations of IIDB refugees so far have been Rants’n’Raves, the Heathen Hangout, and the Freethought Forum.

  • Ric

    Hehe, sorry, on a lighter note, as a roleplayer, every time I read BoD I see BoVD, which is short for Book of Vile Darkness. Maybe there is some link here. :)

  • http://janicerael.blogspot.com/ Janice Rael

    Update: I have been invited to create a new activist home on the Rational Responders website. Details here:



    I am considering a class action civil and criminal action against The Secular Web, maintained by the Internet Infidels. Any suggestions or for more information or comment Send to my e mail address I provided.This is the first public disclosures I have offered but I will increase the exposure before I file in federal court.

  • lpetrich

    I personally am reluctant to support such an action unless it can be shown that there are some good legal reasons for such an action.

  • http://www.daylightatheism.org/ Ebonmuse

    There is no basis for such a lawsuit. It would most likely be immediately dismissed as frivolous, and rightly so.

  • Alex Weaver

    Revroswell reminds me of myself at 15. I had the opposite problem from the people I still have a hard time taking seriously who mindlessly assume that whatever is legal is right and vice-versa, in that I assumed (due to a combination of political manifestos stripped of context and the rather exacting standards of behavior to which I had been subjected) that morally indefensible actions would be illegal and vice versa. I made rather an idiot of myself on several occasions by phrasing my disapproval and disgust (opinions that remain unchanged) at the choices of others with regard to online communities in terms of legal rights, but I never attempted to actually initiate a lawsuit on that grounds. I agree that it would be dismissed, and hope so in light of the potentially destructive precedent such a suit would establish if, in a fit of temporary insanity on the part of the judge, it were successful (imagine Bill Perron suing for his banning here, for instance). The appropriate response here, unless they have actually finally offered some meaningful attempt at leadership reform and an apology to and unbanning of Janice, is verbal condemnation and revocation of support, patronage, or association.

    By the way, was this ever resolved?

  • lpetrich

    This drama llama is still continuing, sad to say. Self-bans, boycotts, reshufflings, heavy-handed moderation, etc. continue. There are some efforts to reform IIDB, with the addition of “IIDB Working Groups” and “Town Hall” forums, but they have not gone very far. IIDB’s Board of Directors recently held their yearly face-to-face meeting, but its details are still unpublished.

  • http://thecanberacook.blogspot.com Cath

    It is finished. All feedback forums closed, all complaint threads disappeared, troublesome members booted, mods & admins resigned in droves, even many of the new ones.

    And by “troublesome members” I mean anyone who objected to the contempt with which they were treated by the representatives of the BoD. 90% of the intellectual power of Evolution/Creation. Highly respected posters with trouble-free post counts in the thousands. Long standing admins and moderators. People who regularly donated money. Basically, 90% of anyone who cared. (Most of the evolution professionals are now at rantsnraves.org, btw.)

    It stopped being about Janice a long time ago. That was only the match to the bonfire.

  • Alex Weaver

    Thanks for the link.

    It’s always unfortunate when a community’s leadership declares an unofficial crusade against the community’s positive features and stated ideals. It is, however, heartening to learn that more than one or two people cared enough to stand up to them.

  • http://www.daylightatheism.org/ Ebonmuse

    Thanks for the update, Cath. It’s unfortunate to hear that, after some earlier hopeful signs, the Board has reversed direction and instituted a full-scale, Soviet Union-style clampdown on dissent. I wish it were otherwise, but this makes me doubly glad I created this thread – that way, the record of what has happened will not disappear from the internet, no matter how many complaint threads they delete.

    (FYI, here’s the announcement in which the Board says they will no longer be permitting debate about this. I find it unbelievable how blatantly totalitarian their language has become.)

  • Alex Weaver

    In keeping with Adam’s post above, in case that announcement vanishes once the “leadership” realizes how poor a light it presents them in, I’ve saved a copy of that announcement to disk both as text and a screen capture and will be happy to provide it for future distribution.

    One thing that caught my eye:

    5. None of these changes, including the temporary suspensions, are meant to be punitive.

    Yeah, and cdesign proponentsists are motivated by honest examination of the evidence.

  • http://www.atheismsucks.com Emanuel Goldstein

    The amusing thing about atheists, if that after telling us there is no God to tell us what to do, THEY want to tell us what to do.

    Why the suprise?

  • James Bradbury

    Emanuel Goldstein,
    Not all atheists are great people just as not all Christians are. However, the point is that there’s nothing about atheism which promotes authoritarian behaviour. As you can see from the reaction to the IIDB situation, most atheists are strongly opposed to authoritarianism.

    It doesn’t always rule it out, but I challenge anyone to show any reason why atheism causes authoritarian closed-mindedness. Note, I’m not asking you to show an example of when the two happen together, there are plenty of those, but a casual link from not believing in any gods to the stifling of free thought. I don’t believe such a link exists, but I’m willing to look at any evidence you might have.

  • http://www.iidb.org RBH

    I will add that when the administrators were finally told of the first two decisions from the Board of Directors’ face-to-face meeting (more than a week after the meeting), I resigned as Lead Administrator rather than execute the BoD’s instructions. Subsequently two more Administrators, Pendaric and ju’iblex, also resigned. With Jet Black, Dean Anderson, and Octavia having resigned earlier, that’s a total of 6 non-BoD administrators who resigned over the BoD’s mismanagement of IIDB within the space of less than two months.

  • Alex Weaver

    The name “Emmanuel Goldstein” rings a bell in the context of internet trolls. I have the vague feeling I’ve seen his posts on Pharyngula, but I can’t find him in the dungeon. Weird.

    In any case, Mr. Troll, this may be a bit late in getting to you, but you are aware that public masturbation is illegal, right?

  • Friday

    The amusing thing about theists, is that after telling us there is a God to tell us what to do, THEY want to tell us what to do.

    Why the surprise?

  • theistscientist

    I think Mr. Ebon should consider starting his own forum and let it be a shining light on a hill example of the professional way to run a forum. Let the people from IIDB come here. That’s what I did.

  • Katie

    The amusing thing about trolls is that they think they are amusing.

    I for one think I’m going to be spending more time at Rants ‘n Raves now. =)

  • http://www.talkrational.org Pendaric

    Many of the ex-staff of IIDB have ended up at Talk Rational.


    Virtually all of the admins who resigned from II are admins here. The board was set up by ex-II staff who had left II following the meltdown. There are currently 400+ active members, many of whom will be familiar to those who follow II.

    Anybody is welcome to join. Please come take a look.


  • stillwaters

    @ Alex Weaver:

    I realize this is an extremely late comment, but I wanted to share my experience with ‘Emanuel Goldstein’. He was one of several trolls (troll names) showing up on the KCFS website during the Kansas battle with ID in 2005. He is very hateful of atheists in general and I’m not the least surprised by his comment here.

    If you look through Pharyngula’s dungeon list, PZ does have one as follows:

    The Kansas Troll(s)
    AKA too many pseudonyms to list

    ‘Emanuel Goldstein’ is one of those pseudonyms.

  • jemand

    and now, even worse, at the RD forums. Complete with entire users and tens of thousands of their posts irrevocably deleted, not just complaining threads…

  • Thumpalumpacus

    … And with not-quite-innocent motives in mind:

    Mazille said, on February 23, 2010 at 9:17 am:

    Not to play the martyr here, but I feel like I should inform you people:

    Until yesterday I was a moderator at RDF going by the name of Mazille. Since I voiced my discontent in a very clear manner (Along with all the other mods and users, but especially CJ, who received the same treatment I did) my account was completely deleted from the forum, along with all my posts and everything I have ever done in the almost two years I spent there. There is no trace left of me (or CJ, I hear, but for obvious reasons I can’t take a look myself). A sad day for me…

    From RDF member Jerome’s blog here: http://jerome23.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/the-end-of-an-era-richard-dawkins-forum-to-close/#comment-888

    Shades of Orwell’s memory-holes.

  • Thumpalumpacus

    Dr Dawkins has posted a reply here. It is lengthy, so I won’t quote.

    I personally finding his reasoning wanting, but that’s just me.

    (Sorry about the hi-jack, Adam; I’ll leave off now).

  • http://she-who-chatters.blogspot.com D

    Thumpalumpacus, to bring your slight derailing all the way back around, I think the two situations are apples and oranges. First, I have to admit that I was unable to view most of the links to IIDB ‘cuz they’re so old and things have changed. But from what I can see, and from reading Doc Dawkins’ letter, I’d say the chief difference is that Dawkins was up-front and honest about the changes he was making, whereas the IIDB situation seems to have been characterized by secrecy and a desperation to maintain appearances.

    It looks like Dawkins is simply trying to institute some standards for what’s going to be on his website. He also gave people time to archive anything they want, because we all know that the internet is Serious Business. I think what Dawkins is trying to do – boost the signal-to-noise ratio – is a fine thing. He may succeed or fail, there are better and worse ways to do this than to start the Hell-ass over, but I do think that the utter outrage is unjustified and rather childish. On the other side of the coin, of course, deleting people’s entire whatever when it’s all going down in a few more days anyway seems like a completely unnecessary and provocative response.

    But this is a far cry from firing a lady for stepping on someone’s toes rather than, I dunno, trying to do some conflict resolution and work something out. It’s good that Janice ended up with another community that appreciates her hard work and talents, but it’s still got to hurt that something she put so much time and love into is going down in flames over a clash of egos. But then, that’s what happens when people insist on getting their way at the expense of getting along.

    But Hell, I dunno, maybe I’m missing something.

  • Thumpalumpacus


    It’s not so much in the cause where I find similarity, but the effect. The idea that dissentient mods should be deleted, along with their posts, simply because they raised a hue and cry, is disheartening.

    Additionally, shutting down the site for the final thirty days to commentary bespeaks a wariness of public opinion that is unseemly for a freethought site.

    I completely understand Dr Dawkins’s concern that posts put under his banner meet up to his standard, and I also understand that he is most likely tangential to the day-to-day operations of the site, at best.

    But Dawkins needs to remember that what is done in his name reflects upon him even more that what is on the screen under his name. My ire is reserved for the admins who handled this so ham-handedly. RD needs to see this for the blow that it is, and put his weight behind a better solution than the hushing of people who’ve moderated his fora for him for years.

  • http://www.daylightatheism.org Ebonmuse

    Sigh. Drama is an omnipresent part of the World Wide Web, it seems. And deleting users’ entire posting record – that’s despicable, if true. It’s the 21st-century equivalent of book-burning.

    That’s why you should all come and comment on this site, because I am a good-hearted and benevolent dictator who would never do such a thing. ;)

  • http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    {{Comment Deleted}}

  • http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi


  • http://www.daylightatheism.org Ebonmuse

    Serves you right.