Shades: Why Is Referring to Posting Volume Bad?

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related that's insulting or not safe for work. Rated R to NC-17.

Moderator: Gadianton

Post Reply
Bach
God
Posts: 1606
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 5:41 pm

Shades: Why Is Referring to Posting Volume Bad?

Post by Bach »

Why do you provide this history if referring to it is not allowed in posts? Never seen a rule that prohibits it.

Frankly, I think it is very revenant in any character experience conversation. I understand how embarrassing it may be for the EAllusion, KG and plethora of suspected unemployed here.

But you provide all this information on your board. So is it off limits to use such information when discussing or questioning one’s relevance, experience, or questioning one’s time invested in anything they claim?

Why does EAllusion find it so offensive to deny my posts? Or is it just obvious to you and I only?

If that is not an issue I would love for you to articulate why my posts are still sensored and, for facts sakes, show just one of my posts that otherwise violates your rules in the past 6 months.

User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 8470
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am

Re: Shades: Why Is Referring to Posting Volume Bad?

Post by canpakes »

Bach wrote:Why do you provide this history if referring to it is not allowed in posts? Never seen a rule that prohibits it.

Frankly, I think it is very revenant in any character experience conversation. I understand how embarrassing it may be for the EAllusion, KG and plethora of suspected unemployed here.

But you provide all this information on your board. So is it off limits to use such information when discussing or questioning one’s relevance, experience, or questioning one’s time invested in anything they claim?

Why does EAllusion find it so offensive to deny my posts? Or is it just obvious to you and I only?

If that is not an issue I would love for you to articulate why my posts are still sensored and, for facts sakes, show just one of my posts that otherwise violates your rules in the past 6 months.

Just capturing this text for future humorous reference.

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 10546
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Shades: Why Is Referring to Posting Volume Bad?

Post by honorentheos »

Where does it say posting about it is against the rules? I haven't seen a moderator post on it, and it doesn't seem like any posts with that information have been moderated specific to that issue. I'm sure people may complain or mock you for wasting time on it while mocking someone for their post count, but where is the evidence it's considered against the rules?

Or by bad, are you referring to people mocking you for posting about mocking people about it and not about actual moderator actions?
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa

Bach
God
Posts: 1606
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 5:41 pm

Re: Shades: Why Is Referring to Posting Volume Bad?

Post by Bach »

Shades? Still waiting.

User avatar
Dr. Shades
Founder & Visionary
Posts: 14130
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm

Re: Shades: Why Is Referring to Posting Volume Bad?

Post by Dr. Shades »

honorentheos answered for me.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley

Bach
God
Posts: 1606
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 5:41 pm

Re: Shades: Why Is Referring to Posting Volume Bad?

Post by Bach »

Dr. Shades wrote:honorentheos answered for me.

It’s your board. Have you not got any confidence nor integrity to go on the record, on your own board, to answer a simple question.

Can I assume bringing poster facts will no longer be a reason to keep my posts on the queue? If so, can you point to any one of my specific posts over the past 6 months that have visited any rules more so than those of your lunch buddy KG?

Your board - your bias - your life - and you’re coward.

User avatar
Dr. Shades
Founder & Visionary
Posts: 14130
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm

Re: Shades: Why Is Referring to Posting Volume Bad?

Post by Dr. Shades »

Criticisms of a person's posting habits are (barely) passable.

Attacking every member of the board is what'll cause your post to die in the queue.

RULE OF THUMB: If your post contains the words "you people" or "the people here," then it won't pass the queue.

This is the second or third time I've carefully explained this to you. Learn it. Live it. Love it.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley

Bach
God
Posts: 1606
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 5:41 pm

Re: Shades: Why Is Referring to Posting Volume Bad?

Post by Bach »

Dr. Shades wrote:Criticisms of a person's posting habits are (barely) passable.

Attacking every member of the board is what'll cause your post to die in the queue.

RULE OF THUMB: If your post contains the words "you people" or "the people here," then it won't pass the queue.

This is the second or third time I've carefully explained this to you. Learn it. Live it. Love it.


You will let your lunch buddy KG insult everyone and anyone under the sun here with his unsubstantiated claims of idiocy that he can’t begin to provide factual evidence for in his tirades. You tolerate his biased tirades just to (IMHO) support continued volume of his constituency and the existence of this place.

Yet when I post a factual correlation supported by your public data, youand the rest of those offended by that mirror, choose not to allow a discussion of the relevance of its logic, you just want it to go away for obvious reasons.

Shades, you’re really are a coward for not engaging and your bias is embarrassing for anyone with self respect.

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 10546
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Shades: Why Is Referring to Posting Volume Bad?

Post by honorentheos »

Bach wrote:
Dr. Shades wrote:Criticisms of a person's posting habits are (barely) passable.

Attacking every member of the board is what'll cause your post to die in the queue.

RULE OF THUMB: If your post contains the words "you people" or "the people here," then it won't pass the queue.

This is the second or third time I've carefully explained this to you. Learn it. Live it. Love it.


BACH, insulting Kevin Graham specifically as an individual in a post that everyone can read because it's not in queue: You will let your lunch buddy KG insult everyone and anyone under the sun here with his unsubstantiated claims of idiocy that he can’t begin to provide factual evidence for in his tirades. You tolerate his biased tirades just to (IMHO) support continued volume of his constituency and the existence of this place.

BACH, insulting Dr. Shades specifically as an individual in a post that everyone can read because it's not in queue: Yet when I post a factual correlation supported by your public data, you...

BACH, insulting a selection of non-specific individuals in a post that everyone can read because it's not in queue: ...and the rest of those offended by that mirror, choose not to allow a discussion of the relevance of its logic, you just want it to go away for obvious reasons.

BACH, insulting Dr. Shades specifically as an individual in a post that everyone can read because it's not in queue: Shades, you’re really are a coward for not engaging and your bias is embarrassing for anyone with self respect.


It's a good strategy to break up your on-the-clock porn viewing at your middle-management job in a distribution warehouse with occasional vitriol-filled rants on an LDS message board. It makes HR's job easy which I'm sure they appreciate.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa

Post Reply