• Embarking on a digital quest through the vast citadels of Google and beyond, an ancient relic was unearthed: the revered "export" scroll dated September 5, 2014. Rejoice, for the chronicles thought lost have been found. Welcome back to the complete tapestry of TTI.

    Read More

Ban chronospamstorian?


New Member
<FORM METHOD=POST ACTION="http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttiforum/dopoll.php"><INPUT TYPE=HIDDEN NAME="pollname" VALUE="1084356297MisterJT">

Ban chronospamstorian?
<input type="radio" name="option" value="1" />Yes
<input type="radio" name="option" value="2" />Yeah
<input type="radio" name="option" value="3" />Yep
<input type="radio" name="option" value="4" />omfg yes
<input type="radio" name="option" value="5" />Nah
<input type="radio" name="option" value="6" />Let him spam some more, I need some entertainment!
<INPUT TYPE=Submit NAME=Submit VALUE="Submit vote" class="buttons"></form>
Might seem strange to see this from me, but I don't think he should be banned.

He has done nothing to disrupt the operation of the board, ie he hasn't butted in on other conversations saying that everything someone says is wrong, because he comes from the future and 'knows' it - although I don't he'd be able to hold up his argument in such a case /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

He hasn't broken any rules.

My earlier poll was simply to lock the 2522 thread. I found it irksome to see and read and felt the subject matter was lacking in plausibility.

If Chrono comes clean, do you honestly think that people will care? I don't think that there's one person that believes him to be real, so no-one is going to come down hard on him. If he was to give up the game, I don't think I'd mind if he actually stuck around afterwards, if he has a genuine interest in Time Travel.

If he was to give up, and call us all losers for conversing with him, then that's just pissy. I'd have no trouble voting to ban him then.

As it stands, let him do his thing, and wait til he gets bored, or tired of tripping over his own tracks.

I agree. I'm getting increasingly tired of the whole thing, and it's getting easier and easier to find contradictions in what he claims as well as the obligitory gaps in knowledge and errors. However, I don't think he's doing any actual harm. If I don't find it fun enough to be worth the effort any more, I'll simply stop responding to him.

I've not been here very long, but you'll note that I already dopn't respond to Creedo. No offense to the guy, but I don't think I'd get much sense or be able to get him to stick to the point at hand. Ergo, I simply don't bother reading his posts.
Nah, he's entertaining, I LMAO because of him, he reminds me alot of TT1 and TT0 oh and of course JT, let him speak, it make good entertainement.
At the worst he's just annoying. I don't think that he is trying to convince anyone that he is really from the future, I think that he is just trying to see how long he can keep people interested in dragging his thread out. The game is "you'll quit before I will".

It's clear to everyone that he hasn't taken grade 9 science and atomic theory yet, so maybe it's time to let his threads die. I guess I'm one to talk, every crazy statement he posts sucks me back in.
Rhudey-I meant gravitational forces when talking about planets but I didn't think you would know what I meant.
So just because you don't believe me people will want me banned? where is the freedom of speech?

I am not insulting anyone. I am from the future.

soon you will see. recently I saw one of the inventions that I said would come true on the news.
Well, as you're from England, like me, you should know that we have no freedom of speech over here. The UK law provides no such right. So no, I don't enjoy it in the real world.

As a historian, surely you should know that?

And as for enjoying taking it away, I'm not the person who has taken it away. Nobody has taken it away, you never had freedom of speech on here. Neither do I. A message board is not a country with a constitution and a democratically elected leadership. a message board is a dictatorship. It may well be a benevolent one, and it may well choose to operate under democratic principals, if it wishes, but it is owned and run by people, and what they say is law. If they do not wish you to post, then you have no right to post. If they do not wish you to use the word "noodles", then you will be prevented from doing so. And, if you're not happy with the way that a message board is run, then you are free to either petition the owner(s)/ruler(s) (and face the possibility that they will not listen), or to leave.

No, I don't get any pleasure from this fact. Nor do I find it unfair. It's merely a fact of life.
trollface-there is freedom of speech in england. there were anti war rallies were there was freedom of speech. You can insult the government which is freedom of speech.
In practice, we seem to have considerable freedom of speech - I'd say that in practice we actually have more than the Americans do.

However, there is no law or statute that sets out such a right. Thus, while in practice we may be able to say many things without fear of retribution, we do not have the right to freedom of speech. and, if the government did arrest someone for ideas they were expressing, they wouldn't have broken any law or statute.
trollface-there is freedom of speech in england. there were anti war rallies were there was freedom of speech. You can insult the government which is freedom of speech.

I thought that was before your arrival to this time... :eek:

actually there is a law in the british bill of rights that says:

"Englishmen possessed certain civil and political rights that could not be taken away. These included:

the freedom of speech in Parliament"

I can only think of that one at this time. I might be able to think of more later
JamesAnthony-there has been other anti war rallies and anyway I know about them because I learned about them.

I know about the fuel protests and I know about the future british fuel protests in less than a year.
The Bill of Rights as created by King James the Second in 1689?

First off, I'm not sure that that's still valid, as it also gives such rights as Protestants being allowed to arm themselves.

Secondly, it gives the right for freedom of speech within Parliament. Are you a member of Parliament? Neither am I, so it doesn't apply to us.

As for the recent rallys, I didn't pick up on that at first, but they're actually a good example. When Wen Jiabao made a state visit to the UK, people were arrested and carted away merely for holding Tibeten flags, let alone actually demonstrating against the visit.

That's the lack of freedom of speech in action right there. Good example.