The Daniel Peterson Rule: You can't start a new thread if there is a thread

[Binger]

That is the [old] rule. No new threads if there is already a thread.

For example. If there is already a thread about FOX news, you can't start a new one.
If there is already a thread about Daniel Peterson, you must start a new one.

This thread is about Daniel Peterson, so now you must start a thread about Daniel Peterson.

ETA: Changed new to old.

[Res Ipsa]

That is the new rule. No new threads if there is already a thread.

For example. If there is already a thread about FOX news, you can't start a new one.
If there is already a thread about Daniel Peterson, you must start a new one.

This thread is about Daniel Peterson, so now you can start a thread about Daniel Peterson.

Not a new rule. If you spam the board with multiple threads on the same topic, Shades will routinely combine them as he has done throughout the day today. A bit ago, you posted your own split of your own thread in the same kingdom. Having read the mod log, I'm perfectly confident that I acted like a clone of Shades when I merged it into the same thread into which Shades had merged other threads you started on the same topic.

Shades constantly edits the board to help make it readable. Combining multiple spammed threads on the same topic falls into that category.

[Binger]

That is the old rule. No new threads if there is already a thread.

For example. If there is already a thread about FOX news, you can't start a new one.
If there is already a thread about Daniel Peterson, you must start a new one.

This thread is about Daniel Peterson, so now you can start a thread about Daniel Peterson.

Not a new rule. If you spam the board with multiple threads on the same topic, Shades will routinely combine them as he has done throughout the day today. A bit ago, you posted your own split of your own thread in the same kingdom. Having read the mod log, I'm perfectly confident that I acted like a clone of Shades when I merged it into the same thread into which Shades had merged other threads you started on the same topic.

Shades constantly edits the board to help make it readable. Combining multiple spammed threads on the same topic falls into that category.

I will change it to say Old Rule. But it is still the Daniel Peterson Rule because, you know, we need a new Daniel C. Peterson thread.

[Res Ipsa]

Not a new rule. If you spam the board with multiple threads on the same topic, Shades will routinely combine them as he has done throughout the day today. A bit ago, you posted your own split of your own thread in the same kingdom. Having read the mod log, I'm perfectly confident that I acted like a clone of Shades when I merged it into the same thread into which Shades had merged other threads you started on the same topic.

Shades constantly edits the board to help make it readable. Combining multiple spammed threads on the same topic falls into that category.

I will change it to say Old Rule. But it is still the Daniel Peterson Rule because, you know, we need a new Daniel C. Peterson thread.

You know my response by now: all threads are the same and all threads are different. Because, you know, we need a new church finance thread. Or a church thread. Or a thread.

[Dr Exiled]

Binger:

Just make your points and leave it at that. The posters here are who they are and you aren't going to convert them. So, just make your points, without emotion, without this war against the moderators, or the other posters. That point has been played.

[Jersey Girl]

Here's a novel idea. Instead of discussing the board (and it's posters) why not become a participant?

[doubtingthomas]

This thread is about Daniel Peterson, so now you must start a thread about Daniel Peterson.

How about another rule: Let Binger and Atlanticmike be the center of all attention, it makes them happy!

[Binger]

I will change it to say Old Rule. But it is still the Daniel Peterson Rule because, you know, we need a new Daniel C. Peterson thread.

You know my response by now: all threads are the same and all threads are different. Because, you know, we need a new church finance thread. Or a church thread. Or a thread.

I want a Daniel Peterson emoji. If I had that, then I would harass less of the moderators less.

[Binger]

This thread is about Daniel Peterson, so now you must start a thread about Daniel Peterson.

How about another rule: Let Binger and Atlanticmike be the center of all attention, it makes them happy!

Happy valentines day, DT.

[Jersey Girl]

You know my response by now: all threads are the same and all threads are different. Because, you know, we need a new church finance thread. Or a church thread. Or a thread.

I want a Daniel Peterson emoji. If I had that, then I would harass less of the moderators less.