From 442c53fc2da9eadd30dad74231815569f8ca2fbf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: 
 "https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkg1ahb9sRpZyQp1wuvxpk__x_6llBY5pE"
 <Fergus@web>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:10:55 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Forum reply to banned_user check.

---
 .../How_can_I_invert_the_banned__95__user_check__63__.mdwn      | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/doc/forum/How_can_I_invert_the_banned__95__user_check__63__.mdwn b/doc/forum/How_can_I_invert_the_banned__95__user_check__63__.mdwn
index 90cd7f75c..d53a78682 100644
--- a/doc/forum/How_can_I_invert_the_banned__95__user_check__63__.mdwn
+++ b/doc/forum/How_can_I_invert_the_banned__95__user_check__63__.mdwn
@@ -24,3 +24,5 @@ PS: the user is authenticated via 'httpauth', would that make a difference?
 > users to be able to edit certain areas of the site.
 >
 > --[[smcv]]
+
+>> That was my initial setup but it wasn't working and I got caught-up on the `banned_user` idea.  It would seem I was getting tricked by some credential-caching-weirdness.  Fired up another browser and `locked_pages` works perfectly.  Thanks.  -- fergus
-- 
2.39.5