For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Ah, but you didn't reasonably... you just came up with your inapplicable conclusion at the end of these you listed... while leaving out lots of others in this thread and across others.
Yeah, I did.
The conclusion extends naturally out of what you folks posted. If you wanna rationalize those suggestions as anything other than gettin' rid of, or harassin', folks you disapprove of, feel free.you just came up with your inapplicable conclusion at the end of these you listed...
I listed all suggestions in this thread from those who aren't in my penalty box. I'm not goin' huntin' thru other threads and I'm not readin' folks I've dismissed. But, you can list some of those suggestions I've missed. Mebbe there's sumthin' better, more sensible, than ignore among 'em. I'm thinkn' it would be best I didn't hold my breath waitin' for you to offer up them suggestions.while leaving out lots of others in this thread and across others.
Merry Christmas, lace!Happy Holidays!
Thank 'you' "henry quirk" for this 'screenshot', if it is.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 2:18 amLet's take a gander at 'em...
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:23 amI started thinking about alternatives to banning. Like the moderators can make the text in your posts more and more blurry, until finally you are illegible. Or perhaps they edit portions, but not to improve, just for fun. I suppose there is the upvote and downvote democratic options, but I find it hard to believe this doesn't end up being upvotes for people 'on my team' regardless of quality.
Worst post of the week, perhaps in different categories: worst logic, most off topic, most self-congratulatory without merit, least responsive response (not dealing with points made), most ludicrous analogy, greatest anger at trivia, worst appeal to authority and so on. Perhaps 'winning' would cut down on certain patterns. Though I'd guess some would try to win in certain categories.attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 7:14 amI think there should be some polling system setup where we can vote for blocks/bans.
There should be a hard coded limit to how many threads anyone can create in a set period. I think 3 threads/mth for anyone should be enough - that would screw dataswami ...and DAM when she is feeling thread spammy!Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 7:35 amOr, if you start more than three threads in a month, the website starts spamming your email address. It generates new email addresses to send from so it can't be blocked.
Or, if you start more than 3 threads that no one responds to in a month your posts appeared as blocked posts - as if everyone had chosen to foe/block you - for one month.
If you post more than 3 threads but these are all are very active - like burning threads in other forums - then you get a little prize.All of these ('cept the last) involve tinhorns, like yourself, controllin' & bottlenecking (at least you're flat-out honest: you wanna moderate to get rid of folks, like age, you deem unacceptable).henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 12:56 amIgnore. If X offends (you), put 'em in (your) penalty box and forget about 'em.
Thank Crom on His mountain Rick prefers things as they are: open & freewheelin'.
If any of these...EE570D45-6382-439A-8F9F-6E304AFA8F6F.png...offered suggestions: obviously, I wouldn't know.
What are you on ABOUT now "lacewing"? The POINT WAS, more or less, DO NOT GO OUT OF WAY AND CLICK ON A LINK that you do NOT want to read.Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 3:10 amAh, but you didn't reasonably... you just came up with your inapplicable conclusion at the end of these you listed... while leaving out lots of others in this thread and across others.
That's how you roll... limited output based on your manipulation of input. Yep, we know.
Happy Holidays!
Age, your excessive use of capitalization for emphasis only detracts from your supposed position of “reasonableness”. This drama seems to be coming from dispute over the WAY things are said and viewing things in a defensive manor, many arguments have been made, whether verifiable or not, please approach your communication of thoughts in a respectful manor wherever that applies.(argumentation vs assertion)Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 1:16 pmIF I ASKED you TO EXPLAIN, THEN WOULD you?attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:41 pmThe FACT that you don't understand the REASON that we are talking about YOU should at least set of some ALARM BELLS in your head.Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:35 pm
YET, how much of this forum actually is talking ABOUT 'me'.
I suggest 'you', posters, MOVE ALONG and LOOK FOR and FIND the DISCREPANCIES in the ACTUAL WORDS that are written instead.
BUT, please feel FREE to carry on as 'you', posters, are here, if 'you' think or believe that doing so is serving 'you' WELL.LOLattofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:41 pm WE are NOT talking ABOUT you BECAUSE we THINK you ARE very INTELLIGENT - it IS in FACT the OPPOSITE.
LOL
LOL
Did you REALLY think that this was the case?
WHAT made you come to the this MOST ABSURD, LAUGHABLE, RIDICULOUS PRESUMPTION here?LOLattofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:41 pm WE are TALKING about YOU because YOU are so RIDICULOUS...do you UNDERSTAND?
LOL
LOL
Did you somehow ASSUME that this was NOT OBVIOUS?
OF COURSE 'you' think and even BELIEVE that I AM SO RIDICULOUS. This is the VERY BEAUTY of what I AM SHOWING and POINTING OUT here.
BUT what 'you' KEEP MISSING and NOT UNDERSTANDING IS that if ANY one thinks or BELIEFS that ANY thing I SAY or WRITE IS RIDICULOUS, then WHY do 'they' NOT just COPY that part of what I SAID and WROTE, and then SHOW WHY 'it' IS RIDICULOUS?
In other words, and AGAIN, WHY SAY LATER that what I WROTE PREVIOUSLY MAKES 'me' RIDICULOUS, but NEVER POINT OUT and SHOW what MAKES 'me' PREVIOUSLY?
And, I WILL PROVE this POINT IRREFUTABLY True, ONCE AGAIN, by, ONCE MORE, CHALLENGING 'you', posters, here. FIND ABSOLUTELY ANYWHERE in this WHOLE FORUM WHERE you think or BELIEVE I have SAID or WRITTEN absolutely ANY thing that IS RIDICULOUS, THEN BRING 'this' to the FOREFRONT so that we can ALL TAKE A LOOK AT 'it'. AND THEN LET US SEE, through A DISCUSSION, just HOW RIDICULOUS or NOT 'it' REALLY IS.
Although we KNOW, FOR ABSOLUTELY SURE, that you WILL NEVER DO THIS, at least JUST ANSWER WHY you WILL NOT DO THIS?
The ANSWER by the way is EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY to COME-TO-KNOW.
Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.eveinthenight wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:54 amAge, your excessive use of capitalization for emphasis only detracts from your supposed position of “reasonableness”.Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 1:16 pmIF I ASKED you TO EXPLAIN, THEN WOULD you?attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:41 pm
The FACT that you don't understand the REASON that we are talking about YOU should at least set of some ALARM BELLS in your head.LOLattofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:41 pm WE are NOT talking ABOUT you BECAUSE we THINK you ARE very INTELLIGENT - it IS in FACT the OPPOSITE.
LOL
LOL
Did you REALLY think that this was the case?
WHAT made you come to the this MOST ABSURD, LAUGHABLE, RIDICULOUS PRESUMPTION here?LOLattofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:41 pm WE are TALKING about YOU because YOU are so RIDICULOUS...do you UNDERSTAND?
LOL
LOL
Did you somehow ASSUME that this was NOT OBVIOUS?
OF COURSE 'you' think and even BELIEVE that I AM SO RIDICULOUS. This is the VERY BEAUTY of what I AM SHOWING and POINTING OUT here.
BUT what 'you' KEEP MISSING and NOT UNDERSTANDING IS that if ANY one thinks or BELIEFS that ANY thing I SAY or WRITE IS RIDICULOUS, then WHY do 'they' NOT just COPY that part of what I SAID and WROTE, and then SHOW WHY 'it' IS RIDICULOUS?
In other words, and AGAIN, WHY SAY LATER that what I WROTE PREVIOUSLY MAKES 'me' RIDICULOUS, but NEVER POINT OUT and SHOW what MAKES 'me' PREVIOUSLY?
And, I WILL PROVE this POINT IRREFUTABLY True, ONCE AGAIN, by, ONCE MORE, CHALLENGING 'you', posters, here. FIND ABSOLUTELY ANYWHERE in this WHOLE FORUM WHERE you think or BELIEVE I have SAID or WRITTEN absolutely ANY thing that IS RIDICULOUS, THEN BRING 'this' to the FOREFRONT so that we can ALL TAKE A LOOK AT 'it'. AND THEN LET US SEE, through A DISCUSSION, just HOW RIDICULOUS or NOT 'it' REALLY IS.
Although we KNOW, FOR ABSOLUTELY SURE, that you WILL NEVER DO THIS, at least JUST ANSWER WHY you WILL NOT DO THIS?
The ANSWER by the way is EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY to COME-TO-KNOW.
Please do NOT INTERPRET, ASSUME, NOR CONFUSE capitalized letters, from me, as being ANY thing other than being in a respectful manor.eveinthenight wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:54 am This drama seems to be coming from dispute over the WAY things are said and viewing things in a defensive manor, many arguments have been made, whether verifiable or not, please approach your communication of thoughts in a respectful manor wherever that applies.(argumentation vs assertion)
Poor spelling can be seen as either a poor grasp of language and/or a sloppy and inattentive attitude towards your written work.viewing things in a defensive manor, many arguments have been made, whether verifiable or not, please approach your communication of thoughts in a respectful manor wherever that applies.(argumentation vs assertion)
Finally! I was wondering why Veg posted that pic. I was thinking mmm, I don't think the moderator (that does nothing anyway) is paid enough to own that place.reasonvemotion wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 4:18 am Is the pic above in response to ......
Poor spelling can be seen as either a poor grasp of language and/or a sloppy and inattentive attitude towards your written work.viewing things in a defensive manor, many arguments have been made, whether verifiable or not, please approach your communication of thoughts in a respectful manor wherever that applies.(argumentation vs assertion)
If I was a moderator the only stipulation would be correct spelling.