People who exhibit no retention for information and belabor points by forgetting the information they've already learned to simply force people to restate what they were already told to satisfaction, once or repeatedly, are ejected as time wasters.
If you've been debating this issue for any length of time and you don't understand what a creationist would say is unique about the petrified forests (positions, root conditions, parallel contemporary occurrences, etc...) and say that you have no knowledge of creationist evidence, chances are you are here as a time waster.
How you respond to AFJ will give us a good clue to see if our suspicions are correct. We want honest civil dialogues. If you have a reoccurring case of amnesia to rehash points that have already been produced then you'll find yourself ejected.
So. . .if I respond to AFJ in the "wrong way" I can expect to be banned? Am I allowed to know what this "wrong way" is prior to replying? This is all pretty puzzling since I've never brought this issue up here before, never seen anyone present an explanation that accounts for the evidence mentioned previously here or elsewhere, and am posting a perceived problem with YE geology in a thread that's actually titled "Geology Problems for YE Creationists". I didn't see anything resembling this in this forum's rules, but it's possible I missed it. Please clarify as to what kind of response is "not allowed" under forum rules. Am I not allowed to point out the flaws in this explanation? Am I not allowed to point out evidence this model fails to explain? Am I not allowed to present evidence against this model?