Yes, Croix makes a mockery of CathInfo here, since he's turned Matthew's bannings into a complete joke ... where they laugh about his coming back repeatedly.  Shameful.

I've found this cuckoldry so inexplicable on the part of Matthew that I've sometimes suspected that Matthew himself is behind the Croix accounts in order to generate activity on the forum.

I will be completely 100% honest here: If that turns out to be true, it'll be very hard to justify being here any longer.

Bravo! You hit the nail on the head That is exactly right, as has been said multiple times already. It is impossible (read: not able to occur) to "ban him forever" while still allowing CathInfo to operate as it always has. There is nothing (nada, zip, zero, zilch) that can be done to prevent any particular person from joining the forum aside from closing the forum indefinitely to new accounts, or to somehow physically (kidnap? murder? Have them committed?) prevent someone from accessing the internet. Which of the solutions would you prefer?

Except we already know he has at least one active account now (C6H12O6).  So, this isn't just about not being "able" to ban him.  

The choice is being made to let him stay even though he has broken the rules ad nauseum.  And it appears this cycle will continue ad nauseum.

So, no, your post doesn't really apply here.

Except we already know he has at least one active account now (C6H12O6).  So, this isn't just about not being "able" to ban him.  

The choice is being made to let him stay even though he has broken the rules ad nauseum.  And it appears this cycle will continue ad nauseum.

So, no, your post doesn't really apply here.

You and I must have different definitions of "cannot".

And this is not the first time you've implied that you believe there is some way to permanently prohibit someone from using the forum:

Whatever happened to this supposed fix?:

WhiteWorkinClassScapegoat banned - page 1 - Computers, Technology, Websites - Catholic Info

Is Croix really that much smarter than Matthew?

At this point the people complaining are almost more annoying than Croix. You act as if the rules of the forum (which only Matthew knows in their entirety), are set in stone and cannot be changed or ignored by the owner of the forum, who created them, at will. Get over it

Actually, yes.  "Cannot" is not always the same definition as "not being able to". 

And yes, Matthew can ignore (even repeatedly) members that break the rules as owner.  But don't tell me that doesn't make a mockery of said rules.

As for the bolded, well then maybe you should follow your own advice and ignore us. 

Not sure what you are talking about at this point. 

You said:

It appears that Matthew cannot/will not ban him forever.

I replied to the "cannot" part, affirming that is indeed the case.

Your now distinction between "cannot" and "not being able to" is irrelevant, as you originally did not say "able to" and I did not reply to your saying "able to"..because you didn't say that, you said "cannot". 

 "Will not" implies Matthew is choosing not to ban him, I've already said that's his choice. His rules, not yours. He can make or change rules, we cannot. "No ban circuмventing" could have been a rule a month ago, and it could no longer be a rule today. What do you not understand about this?

And I already said sure he "can" do that, but by doing so he makes a mockery of said rule.  If one minute he extols how important his rule of not allowing multiple accounts is, but then another minute decides he's going to allow it for someone who has repeatedly broken it, then why should anyone take the rule seriously? 

I think you and I are done here.

Would you mind posting the official CathInfo forum rules (up-to-date as of 6/27/2025)? You are in possession of the rules list, right? 

I think now you and I are done here

Blah blah

Already well aware of that post. There is certainly something to distinguish between "holding multiple accounts" and creating a new account after being banned..but we don't really need to get into that. What I am in need of is the current rules list, could you help a brother out?

Except we already know he has at least one active account now (C6H12O6).  So, this isn't just about not being "able" to ban him.  

The choice is being made to let him stay even though he has broken the rules ad nauseum.  And it appears this cycle will continue ad nauseum. 

Matthew has banned Croix twice in the last 2 months.  But he just creates another account.  How is this possible?  Because of VPNs, and how the internet works.  If you're savvy enough, you can be un-bannable.  Has nothing to do with Matthew being "soft" on the rules.  It's due to the internet.