@suzianne saidJeeze, you don't seem to like someone butting into your conversations, but you have no problems butting into others what so ever.
I would warn you to mind your own freaking business.
I'm not talking to you.
What do you think warning me is going to accomplish when you are off topic to begin with Suzie Q?
For someone not talking to me you have much to say! 🙂 😛
-VR
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
@divegeester saidYes.
Do you mean relax and start threads about how anxious I am about how the site credibility is diminishing due to a handful of second accounts posting the general forum...that kind of relaxed easy reading?
- Joined
- 11 Nov 14
- Moves
- 34223
@WOLFE63
You should use the argument that runs something along the lines of
'the two situations are in no way comparable, and it is ludicrous for you to even dream of citing my case as being anywhere near similar to that of yours, thus you are brain dead imbecile/boring poster/unworthy of our great intellect '
It is a line of 'argument' frequently used by a pair of posters on here.
If that fails, just ask them 'what is wrong with you'
That seems to be another well formed argument by the dynamic duo.
@suzianne saidHow is it a "form of censorship"?
For your information, this is also why naming people who leave thumbs is a very bad idea as well. It's just another form of censorship usually pushed by people who can't stand being criticized.
Would there be some deletion or curtailment of the use of the thumbs?
@fmf saidIdentifying posters is a two-edged sword.
How is it a "form of censorship"?
Would there be some deletion or curtailment of the use of the thumbs?
If the current Senate impeachment hearing allowed for a secret ballot, there'd be a strong vote in favour of conviction. Publicly identifying voters' choices means that almost all Republican senators can't vote honestly without negative consequences.
That's the reason that secret ballots exist. Doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things who clicked on a thumb button.
@kewpie saidI agree that thumbs don't matter in the grand scheme of things, except perhaps to people with the mentality of neilrini and Relentless Red, but what "negative consequences" are you referring to in the context of the forums/thumbs? You mean additional banter?
Identifying posters is a two-edged sword.
If the current Senate impeachment hearing allowed for a secret ballot, there'd be a strong vote in favour of conviction. Publicly identifying voters' choices means that almost all Republican senators can't vote honestly without negative consequences.
That's the reason that secret ballots exist. Doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things who clicked on a thumb button.
Around April last year, a Spirituality Forum poster called dj2becker accidentally posted with a 10-year-old account called mariekeXIV and then quickly deleted it, logged out, logged back in, and posted the same message as dj2becker.
The mariekeXIV account had never started any chess games nor indeed ever made any chess moves at all, nor was there any sign the account had started any threads or made any posts.
dj2becker staunchly refused to explain why he had logged on as mariekeXIV and questioned the right of someone who had supposedly lost all credibility by posting as John W Booth for a few weeks back ten years ago to even query the mariekeXIV incident.
I believe he was most likely using mariekeXIV to create extra thumbs down because in that conversation, all my posts were getting two thumbs down (mariekeXIV and dj2becker) but after mariekeXIV was rumbled, they only got one thumb down.
I do wonder, when someone gets, say, seven thumbs-down in a very short space of time, whether that sudden proliferation is conjured up by people using multiple accounts.
Edit: correction, mariekeXIV started one game in 2010 but no move was made by either player.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117437
@suzianne saidYou are either misremembering the thread, lying, or maybe fantasising.
Maybe you need to go read that thread in Spirituality again. In no way were the wounds he received in that thread "self-inflicted". They came from you and divegeester, as usual.
Even Ghost of a Duke tried (in vain) to coach Relentless Pete back from the edge of forum intellectual calamity, but he was having nothing of it and allowed his hubris to drive him on, doubling down again and again and again, insisting that the only true atheist was one who converted to theism on their deathbed. And rather than hold his hand up and admitting that what he had said was utterly ludicrous, he just brazened it out.
All FMF and myself did (and Bigdoggproblem until he got bored) was to challenge Pete on what he had said. Yes his “wounds” were totally self inflicted.
The thread is still accessible, you should go and have a read.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117437
@wolfe63 saidOh good; because I thought for a moment there that you were suggesting I adopt your philosophy of jumping into historical disagreements between other posters, of which I know little about and throwing out some little poisonous barbs at whoever it is who is attacking my forum buddy, irrespective of the actual background.
Yes.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28792
@divegeester saidStill plenty of time.
I voted for “Murder Mystery” and I probably won’t even submit an entry.