Philosophy Now Forum

I'm sick of RWStanding monopolising the unanswered topics section so I'm looking for volunteers to go on a rota to answer his posts. That section is for everyone, not just RWStanding. The next thing we know, he will be claiming exclusive possession, we have to act now.

Harbal wrote:I'm sick of RWStanding monopolising the unanswered topics section so I'm looking for volunteers to go on a rota to answer his posts. That section is for everyone, not just RWStanding. The next thing we know, he will be claiming exclusive possession, we have to act now.

Here's a solution. Post a reply to each of the guilty threads. Then he won't have a monopoly anymore.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Here's a solution. Post a reply to each of the guilty threads. Then he won't have a monopoly anymore.

PhilX

There's too many of them, that's why I need help.

Harbal wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Here's a solution. Post a reply to each of the guilty threads. Then he won't have a monopoly anymore.

PhilX

There's too many of them, that's why I need help.

But then Philosophy Explorer would again reign supreme on there.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Harbal wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Here's a solution. Post a reply to each of the guilty threads. Then he won't have a monopoly anymore.

PhilX

There's too many of them, that's why I need help.

But then Philosophy Explorer would again reign supreme on there.

You certainly would.

PhilX

Have you noticed that VT doesn't put up threads on this forum? I wonder why?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Have you noticed that VT doesn't put up threads on this forum? I wonder why?

PhilX

Have you noticed how you don't churn out endless virus-infested links any more? Did you finally get treatment for the OCD?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Have you noticed that VT doesn't put up threads on this forum? I wonder why?

PhilX

Have you noticed how you don't churn out endless virus-infested links any more? Did you finally get treatment for the OCD?

I've been inoculated against you.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Have you noticed that VT doesn't put up threads on this forum? I wonder why?

PhilX

I have noticed how Philosophy Explorers threads miraculously disappear if they arn't going according to his plan..

What happened to your "Which way is time moving?" thread in the science section?

attofishpi wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Have you noticed that VT doesn't put up threads on this forum? I wonder why?

PhilX

I have noticed how Philosophy Explorers threads miraculously disappear if they arn't going according to his plan..

What happened to your "Which way is time moving?" thread in the science section?

Not miraculously. It was reentered under your OP without consultation according to the highlighted wording (in red).

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Have you noticed that VT doesn't put up threads on this forum? I wonder why?

PhilX

I have noticed how Philosophy Explorers threads miraculously disappear if they arn't going according to his plan..

What happened to your "Which way is time moving?" thread in the science section?

Not miraculously. It was reentered under your OP without consultation according to the highlighted wording (in red).

PhilX

We all know you are a thread spammer - but why do you insist on removing threads with no courtesy when other people have made the effort to respond?

attofishpi wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

attofishpi wrote:
I have noticed how Philosophy Explorers threads miraculously disappear if they arn't going according to his plan..

What happened to your "Which way is time moving?" thread in the science section?

Not miraculously. It was reentered under your OP without consultation according to the highlighted wording (in red).

PhilX

We all know you are a thread spammer - but why do you insist on removing threads with no courtesy when other people have made the effort to respond?

I'm not responsible for its removal. Why don't you ask the one who is responsible why he removed it? (btw how do you define spamming?)

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Not miraculously. It was reentered under your OP without consultation according to the highlighted wording (in red).

PhilX

We all know you are a thread spammer - but why do you insist on removing threads with no courtesy when other people have made the effort to respond?

I'm not responsible for its removal. Why don't you ask the one who is responsible why he removed it? (btw how do you define spamming?)

PhilX

Okay, so who is responsible? Thread spamming is an obvious metaphor for one that starts lots of threads.

attofishpi wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

attofishpi wrote:
We all know you are a thread spammer - but why do you insist on removing threads with no courtesy when other people have made the effort to respond?

I'm not responsible for its removal. Why don't you ask the one who is responsible why he removed it? (btw how do you define spamming?)

PhilX

Okay, so who is responsible? Thread spamming is an obvious metaphor for one that starts lots of threads.

Since I'm not notified nor "consulted" as to who took down that thread and why, I'm afraid I can't respond to your inquiry. Sorry.

PhilX