[editor-surveyor]

Coalition of discussion?

That was not the subject; it was a coalition of purpose, which is not desirable, since there is such a decided diversion of purpose.

[allmendream]

Banning someone removes them from the discussion. It was obvious that BobJ was never going to be united in the purpose of advancing the candidacy of Sarah Palin, but he may well have (at one time or another) been a useful ally in advancing conservative causes or contributing to conservative discussion.

That was the “coalition” that the poster said was to be desired, his continued participation in this discussion.

That you bring up “unequally yoked to the unbeliever” and the notions of “righteous” and “unrighteous” as to why BobJ should have been banned amazes me.

Do you really consider BobJ an “unbeliever” or “unrighteous”? Is this based entirely upon his opposition to the candidacy of Sarah Palin?