[PatrickHenry]

Further thought: the category of "righteous creationists" (which doesn't mean self-righteous creationists) actually includes two groups, those who are genuinely thoughtful, and those who are consistently clueless, but not malicious.

[Long Cut]

"Further thought: the category of "righteous creationists" (which doesn't mean self-righteous creationists) actually includes two groups, those who are genuinely thoughtful, and those who are consistently clueless, but not malicious."

I've thought about it, ansd you're right...a "blacklist" of repeated, proven liars would doubtless cause trouble in mod-land. A list of the honest (if ill-informed) ones seems like a positive step.

I figure that "maliciously clueless" posters are those who DO NOT acknowledge when they are proven wrong, repeat proven lies, and who do not make efforts to correct others. They also toss their stinkbombs (Evolution=communism/Naziism/etc) crap with wild abandon and refer to sources which have many times been debunked. Oh, and they also continue to claim that there's "no evidence at all", or "there's no transitional fossils" or suchlike when they have repeatedly been shown examples of each. Those are the "bad guys".

The "good guys" are those who do not engage in lies or slander, correct errors when shown, refrain from using bogus and debunked sources, and generally conduct themselves on the up-and-up. They are also those who genuinely listen to counterarguments and make efforts to look at and understand the evidence presented.

I'd simply recommend ignoring the "bad guys" completely. Even if one must correct one of their posts, don't even give them the acknowledgement of pinging to them. Post a rebuttal to someone who'll actually read it and get something from it.