Welcome back the guy with no name and a deleted posting history.

I suspect that there was a major breach of the Seti Forum database when
User ID: 7787259 decided to become a referee in this playground and
edited all of his posts up to june 3, 2014. The posts weren't hidden, but
rather changed. That's not nice.

There was a moderator that was doing this. I tried to point it out to no avail. ;)

---

...

Welcome back the guy with no name and a deleted posting history.


I suspect that there was a major breach of the Seti Forum database when
User ID: 7787259 decided to become a referee in this playground and
edited all of his posts up to june 3, 2014. The posts weren't hidden, but
rather changed. That's not nice.

There was a moderator that was doing this. I tried to point it out to no avail. ;)

Just did a search for that user and no such user found .

so who is the poster of the comment talking about ?

If said poster is talking about Bobby and this thread being just to cause trouble i would remind you all that this subject is a current one that many country's are talking about or changing there laws .

Ireland , America , England and others have all changed there laws . The only country i have herd so far to reject it is Italy and that is not surprising as that is where the Vatican is .

If the only objection is because of religion then the laws should be changed as there is no reason not to .

States or country's should be secular and free from influence by religious organisations and something i am seeing that is not happening in all country's .

---

297902 why do i need to do that when i already know who he is , his intials are G.N

i guess you can't hide anymore can you G.N

Edit: I did say i searched for him witch means i do know how to search for a user . Accounts page , find friends , type id in bingo user comes up this user no longer is part of seti so unless he has rejoined and is trying to be incogneto he no longer is with us ...or is he .........!!!

---

Welcome back the guy with no name and a deleted posting history.

I suspect that there was a major breach of the Seti Forum database when
User ID: 7787259 decided to become a referee in this playground and
edited all of his posts up to june 3, 2014. The posts weren't hidden, but
rather changed. That's not nice.

There was a moderator that was doing this. I tried to point it out to no avail. ;)

The person concerned was a moderator and moderators can edit their own posts. However moderators cannot edit other peoples posts, only hide or move them.

---

Welcome back the guy with no name and a deleted posting history.

I suspect that there was a major breach of the Seti Forum database when
User ID: 7787259 decided to become a referee in this playground and
edited all of his posts up to june 3, 2014. The posts weren't hidden, but
rather changed. That's not nice.

There was a moderator that was doing this. I tried to point it out to no avail. ;)

The person concerned was a moderator and moderators can edit their own posts. However moderators cannot edit other peoples posts, only hide or move them.

Can <> should, let alone doing that to scores of his own posts.
This is now off-topic and I'm sure you'll next try to give us a thread to let off steam about it.
Let me preempt that: we've said our peace, I believe. It was obvious well before his modship that could be done; i.e., mods have more than the hour to edit than we do. He's not the only one to have done it, though the scope is far more wide-ranging and it makes no sense to have done so; people can disagree, vociferously so. His erasures seem to have been related to "I want no evidence remaining that I ever spoke to these people."
Bernie, your post provided no new information nor explanation of motive. We have said, in our own various ways, we believe an abuse of power occurred. About 5 hours passed until your post. I believe we have said our peace and no further discussion of it is necessary, most likely, as that person is no longer in a position to abuse the power.

While he erased here, he could not erase the wayback machine.

Seems the ruckus hasn't been about the topic but off topic stuff. Perhaps we should return to the conversation at hand, if there is any?

---

Survey conducted before the decision. 47% respondents Republican (note higher than national percentage of party registration), survey says ... 55% said businesses shouldn't be allowed to deny wedding-related services to same-sex couples because of an owner's beliefs.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/87c60815b8b44a68b2ee6f7be462ec7e/survey-its-not-ok-businesses-deny-service-lgbts

Survey: It's not OK for businesses to deny service to LGBTs
Jul. 13, 2015 12:01 AM EDT
NEW YORK (AP) — A majority of small business owners believe companies shouldn't be allowed to withhold goods or services from lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people based on an owner's religious beliefs, according to a survey released Monday.

Two-thirds of the owners questioned in the survey by the advocacy group Small Business Majority said businesses shouldn't be able to refuse to provide goods or services to LGBT customers. Fifty-five percent said businesses shouldn't be allowed to deny wedding-related services to same-sex couples because of an owner's beliefs.

The survey of 500 small business owners was conducted in late April, two months before the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is legal in every state in the nation. It was conducted several weeks after the Indiana Legislature amended the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which opponents said could enable companies to refuse to do business with LGBT people because company owners' beliefs oppose those customers' lifestyles.

A majority of the survey participants said they support laws that give additional protection for LGBT people; 80 percent support a federal law to prohibit discrimination against LGBT individuals in restaurants, hotels and other businesses that are open to the public. Eighty-one percent said they're in favor of a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination that's based on the sexual orientation or gender identity of a worker or job applicant. Federal law currently doesn't give the same protection against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity as it does against discrimination based on gender, age, race, religion or disability.

Nearly half, or 47 percent of the survey participants identified themselves as Republican, 33 percent said they were Democrats and 19 percent said they were independent.

But the majority of companies — two-thirds — said they had no policy in their companies protecting LGBT employees from discrimination. Of those that do have a policy, 64 said they created it because all customers and employees should be treated fairly and equally. Sixty percent said creating such a policy is the right thing to do, and about 40 percent said having a policy makes it easier to attract and retain good workers and draw more customers.

I'd think after reading the survey if I were a Republican candidate, I'm for gay marriage.

---

I'd think after reading the survey if I were a Republican candidate, I'm for gay marriage.

The question is, does that 55% also translate into a 55% majority during the primaries? Its pointless if 55% is pro gray marriage and all that but its the 45% that shows up to vote during the primary elections.