Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - AllAroundTheWorld

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 170  Next >
41
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Abusive DMs
« on: October 09, 2021, 03:06:48 PM »
and if this was someone else's idea, AATW would be starting thread after thread about how much he hates new rules
Wow. So you really think that if someone else suggested something which I clearly agree with - given that it was my suggestion - then I’d disagree with it? ???
Seriously, why do you think so dimly of me?
You have posted publicly about how I was initially a pain in the arse but settled down to become a reasonable member of the forum.
And yet when I make what I think is a reasonable suggestion - one which you actually agree with - you start accusing me of trolling and “starting pointless drama”.
All I’ve done is start a thread in S&C, isn’t that’s the right thing to do in this situation?

Quote
You can still see the posts of someone you ignored - you just have to click on them to reveal them.
This answers the question I asked in my other thread - I saw this post after I wrote mine.

42
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Abusive DMs
« on: October 09, 2021, 02:25:29 PM »
you need to keep in mind that imposing restrictions on users is something we don't do lightly. As one of our main champions of the "mods shouldn't do anything ever" cause, I'm sure you can see why.

You’re slightly misrepresenting me but I do think you are prone to be a little trigger happy at times. The board I run is a football one and someone on there compared the mods to referees. You need to let the game flow, so to speak, but it can’t be a free for all. Getting the balance right between whistling every 2 minutes and spoiling the game and being so lenient that it ends up in a brawl is a tricky one. There are certain decisions you make which I disagree with. But I’ve been on the other end of that on the other board so I get that there are judgement calls to be made and whatever you do you’re going to have someone moan at you. Such is the life of a mod.

Quote
The "why" is very important here. When two members were complaining about abusive PMs, it seemed likely that this would grow into a widespread issue. If it does, then it becomes pretty obvious that something should be done. However, if you actively choose for your problems to continue (for example, by not choosing to ignore the one person that's annoying you), who are we to make you happy against your own will?
My problem hasn’t been one for a while. I started this thread 2 months ago and hadn’t had any abuse from said member since then so I thought the issue had been dealt with. The recent abusive DM suggests not.
If I do “ignore” then what does that do? Does that just mean the person can’t DM me or does it also mean I don’t see their posts in the fora? Because I do want to see their posts. I mean, I find them a bit irritating but sometimes they post something I feel I should reply to. Asking me to take the action feels like “victim blaming” (a phrase I generally can’t stand). Especially if you’re suggesting I take action which isn’t quite what I’m asking. I don’t want to “ignore” this poster, I want them to stop sending me abusive DMs. And I can’t think why closing this loophole where someone isn’t allowed to harass others on any of the the fora but can do so by DM with impunity is a bad idea.

Quote
Sorry - that's never going to happen. Rule change or not, it would always be down to you to do something.
Ok, fine. I would have to do something. I’d have to report the problem. Because you can’t see DMs. And I’m not asking you to build a whole mechanism where people can report DMs as they would a post, I just think your suggestion to extending that rule to DMs is the right thing to do.

Quote
You are asking for a more complicated process to be implemented, for your sole benefit
I am not. I think that rule 2 is a reasonable one and should extend to DMs. Why should someone be able to harass another poster by DM? How is that a good thing for the board? Even if we agree it’s rare, is there any up side to people being able to do that?

Quote
It is difficult to believe that you're doing it for anything else than drama or, as Thork suggested, revenge.
We’ve had the conversation about you thinking the worst of me, I thought we were past that. It’s not about “drama” because I’m not a teenager. And it’s not about revenge because I’m not asking for this poster to be banned or warned. I’m not asking for any action to be taken against them but I am asking for your help to stop them harassing me.
IF the ignore feature blocks said poster from sending me DMs but still allows me to see their posts then I guess that’s an acceptable solution. But I still think that extending Rule 2 to DMs is the right thing. Yes it would benefit me but I also think it’s the right thing to do.

Quote
there's not enough evidence of this being a big enough issue to restrict everyone's use of the forum for the future.
Is it restrictive though? Is there any up side to allowing posters to be harassed by DM? Note the difference between abused and harassed. The thread about Tom was there for ages before it was locked. It only became against the rules when he felt he was being harassed. This is the same. I’ve had several abusive messages from this post. I now feel he has crossed the line between abuse and harassment.

Quote
I believed you until the post I just quoted. You now made it clear that this is just another complaint about that one time you weren't allowed to break the rules.

No it isn’t. Why do you insist on thinking I have an ulterior motive all the time? I spent a fair amount of time here. I came here initially out of a sense of incredulity and I’ll admit my initial posts here were mostly “FE bad” because I thought you were all crackers. But when I got in to the culture of the place I settled down more and now mostly pass the time of day in the lower fora. It’s a reasonable way of wasting time during down time at work. It’s obviously in my interest that this place is better for me and for others. I don’t believe that a poster should be able to harass other posters in any way. I’ve yet to hear any good reason why this should be allowed.

If you could clarify whether ignore only blocks DMs, it it does then ok, that does solve my issue. If it affects my experience of the fora then it does not.

43
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Abusive DMs
« on: October 09, 2021, 08:27:05 AM »
We currently have no rules governing PMs.

I know. I am suggesting you do. And above you seemed to agree that it would be a good idea:

My proposal would be to extend rule 2 - which already applies in CN, AR, etc. - to also encompass PMs. That way, if Thork wants to message me about his fetishes, he can, because it doesn't bother me, but the moment someone makes it clear they're feeling harassed, the sender should back off. Of course, this wouldn't apply retroactively, so anyone currently engaging in such cheerful exchanges would have time to adjust.

Quote
your case was much stronger before you revealed your true intentions just now).

I don’t know what that mean. My intention is to improve the board’s experience. Not just for me. A certain poster circumvents the rules about abusing other posters by sending them abusive PMs. I don’t believe that should be allowed. You have previously indicated you agree with me.

44
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Abusive DMs
« on: October 08, 2021, 11:23:55 PM »
He doesn't want to. He wants someone to use moderator powers on the perpetrator. Its not a stop to the messages he wants. It is revenge.
No, it's a stop to the messages I want.
I already told you how to do that. You weren't interested.
And I explained why. And I just have again.

45
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Abusive DMs
« on: October 08, 2021, 10:08:50 PM »
He doesn't want to. He wants someone to use moderator powers on the perpetrator. Its not a stop to the messages he wants. It is revenge.
No, it's a stop to the messages I want. And as I said above I don't think I should have to do anything to make that happen.
When Tom ran crying to the mods to say that the bigger boys were being mean to him - in AR, which was within the rules - the mods did something. They didn't tell him that he should deal with it by keeping out of the thread in question. That was an option, but they took action to stop someone being harassed and as big a baby as I think Tom was being, that was probably the right thing to do.
I'm asking for the same here.

46
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Abusive DMs
« on: October 08, 2021, 03:49:47 PM »
Oops, he did it again...

To be clear, I don't want a certain poster to be sending me abusive PMs because he can't control his toddler-like tendencies.

Please tell him to desist.

47
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: October 08, 2021, 12:32:00 PM »
Jesus, the fact you think setting up fake scenery is somehow encouraging people to get this shot

I don't think that. I think the fact of him having the shot could encourage people to.
The set was just window dressing, it's completely irrelevant. And it's not the first time it's been used

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/10/05/fact-check-white-house-didnt-fake-bidens-covid-19-booster-shot/5951822001/

What's your actual point here?

48
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: October 08, 2021, 10:44:13 AM »
Why wouldn't he get the booster in the White House?
You think the people who do boosters go door to door?
I guess the set is for show, but I don't think the point of this was that he was doing it at the White House or wherever that's meant to be, but that he was having it at all - the point being to encourage others to.

49
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: October 08, 2021, 10:20:55 AM »
You seriously think that the fact he's not actually having the booster in the White House (if that's what that is supposed to be) is a real zinger?

OK, dude...

50
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: October 08, 2021, 09:58:55 AM »
Remember the green screen presser outside? They are now just building sets.
Literally no idea what point you think you're making here.
Are you claiming they were trying to be deceptive? Pretty dumb to invite the press if so.

51
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 05, 2021, 09:28:51 AM »
I'm positive you have the stats to support the statement that seatbelts did not reduce deaths
Look it up yourself.

Don't take my word for it.

The trendline for number of motor vehicle fatalities has remained relatively unchanged over the past 70 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year
Well, when you're right, you're right.
33,186 deaths in 1950, 36,56 in 2018.
Case closed!


...except of course you're ignoring that over that period car use went up 7 times and the population more than doubled.
And you're ignoring the big rise in deaths from 1950 to 1980 which has been going down ever since despite the continued increase in population and car usage. Are seatbelts solely responsible for that? No, cars have got safer in lot of other ways too with better design and testing. But it's undoubtably a factor

I can't tell if you're just being dishonest here or are terrible at analysing data.

52
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 01, 2021, 11:03:46 AM »
Tom needs to save some copium for the other struggling “Stop the Steal” Republicans. I have to admit though, his constant refusal to admit the slightest deficiency in his arguements despite the gaping holes, is commendable in a tragic way.
lol, I see he's still squirming away. It's all a bit embarrassing for him.
It's commendable in a "Blank Knight" way I guess. "'Tis but a flesh wound".
But it does show a rather alarming detachment from reality. I hope for his sake he's just trolling.

53
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 01, 2021, 09:31:00 AM »
The first three words in the article title is "So Trump was right".
Yes. This is how clickbait works. Has an eye-catching headline and starts by enticing people to read on.
It's a bit embarrassing that you fell for it and then made false claims about it without having even read the article.
And how dishonest of you not to admit it.
Keep squirming though, if you must...


54
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 01, 2021, 09:15:32 AM »
It claimed that there were extreme inaccuracies, deleted files, abnormal adjudication, and so on. It says the election was unreliable, not fraudulent.
None of which is mentioned in the Times opinion piece. No mention of the audit, no mention of its findings.
It's clear what he's talking about, it has been explained to you. He's making a point about the way he believes people were manipulated, nothing to do with the audit or anything to do with the way the election itself was carried out.
Although interestingly, the piece itself with its clickbait headline is intended to manipulate.
How embarrassing that you fell for it.
And how dishonest of you to keep doubling down when you have been so clearly exposed.

55
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 01, 2021, 08:52:31 AM »
So you concede then that he did read about the audit and the article is about the audit.
lol. It doesn't even mention the audit.
It's a clickbait article with a clickbait title, carefully timed after the audit to fool people like you.
He clearly says he is NOT talking about fraudulent postal votes. He is making a point, just not the one you're claiming.

You have fallen for the clickbait hook, like and sinker.
Which is embarrassing enough.
But when that has been pointed out you, you're just endlessly doubling down rather than admit it, making yourself look sillier and sillier with every post.   :D

You are a living, breathing Monty Python argument sketch.

56
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 01, 2021, 08:17:53 AM »
The author claims to be keeping up on the election contestation claims and well read on the matter. He published after the audit results were reported, speaking generically on the fraudulence of the election. Are you claiming that the author didn't hear of the AZ audit, despite that he claims that he is well read and up to date on the matter? And are you also claiming that the article was only accidentally published the day after the audit results was making the news? Ridiculous.

Of course it wasn't an accident. As I already said, the clickbait article and headline was almost certainly timed to dupe people like you to increase clicks. It obviously worked.

Quote
The author says plainly that he is basing his conclusion that the election was rigged on all available evidence.

Yes. And he also plainly says the "fraud" he's talking about is NOT fraudulent postal votes.

So I asked above whether you are lying or lazy.
I have to conclude given your errors have been clearly pointed out and you are simply doubling down that it is the former.
Everything about your claim that "The British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and came to the conclusion that the election was a fraud" is false. You found one article which is clearly a clickbait opinion piece and not only does not review the audit results, it doesn't even mention them and explicitly says it's not talking about fraudulent postal votes.
Although actually, you didn't even find the article, did you? You found a YouTube video which talks about it, got excited and didn't even bother to look up the article in question. Pretty embarrassing.

57
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 01, 2021, 07:48:36 AM »
Incorrect.
lol. It genuinely doesn't matter to you how clearly you're shown to be wrong or caught in a lie, does it?

Quote
The author is talking about fraud generically
No, he isn't. He's talking quite specifically about the way he believes "the public" were misled by certain information being suppressed.
I don't agree with him for reasons I've outlined, but he's not talking about fraud at all actually - certainly not in the way Trump was talking about it. Trump's claims have been repeatedly shown to be false - or, at least, no evidence has been presented which stood up to any scrutiny.

Quote
and doesn't go into AZ specifically

He doesn't  go in to any audits. He doesn't even mention the AZ one. So why are you lying? Your claim was that the
"British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and came to the conclusion that the election was a fraud"

First, it wasn't "the British media", it was one opinion piece by one person who hardly has a reputation for truthfulness.
From his Wiki page:

Quote
In 2010 he was the first journalist to have a complaint against a blog post he had written to be upheld by the Press Complaints Commission, over a claim that he could not prove about the African-Caribbean community.

and

Quote
A November 2011 article by Liddle in The Spectator about the trial of two men involved in the murder of Stephen Lawrence led to the magazine being prosecuted for breaching reporting restrictions. A court hearing was held in June 2012, in which The Spectator pleaded guilty to contempt of court and accepted a fine of £5,000 plus costs

So you've backed another winner there.

Secondly, he hasn't "reviewed the Arizona audit results". Or, if he has, he doesn't even mention them.
And lastly, he explicitly rules out postal vote fraud in the article. I quoted the part where he does that.

Literally every part of your claim is a lie. Or, let's be generous, it's you being lazy, getting excited by a headline and not bothering to do the most superficial research into your own claim. So lazy or liar, which is it?

Quote
it is clear that the recent events prompted the fraud article since it came out the day after the audit news went around.

I suspect the timing is not a coincidence, it's a clickbait article with a clickbait headline and the timing was clearly designed to further boost clicks. A bit embarrassing that you fell for it, really.

The rest of your post is your typical Bishopian attempt to divert distract from your exposed lies or laziness.

58
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 30, 2021, 02:31:23 PM »
British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and came to the conclusion that the election was a fraud:
Holy shit! Did you even watch that YouTube video? Did you read the article it references?

Firstly, as honk has pointed out this is just an opinion piece from a bloke with a rather chequered past.
It has a disappointingly click-baity headline - disappointing for The Times which is generally regarded as one of the more serious papers in the UK

But not only does the piece not review the Arizona audit results, it doesn't even mention them.
And the piece quite explicitly says that the election was NOT rigged by fraudulent postal votes:

Quote
Whatever the case, that election one year ago was plainly rigged. Not by fraudulent postal votes. But by an affluent elite conspiring, brutally at times, to ensure that the American public heard only one side of the story.

So OK, that's his opinion. Although it's one I struggle to take seriously given that Fox News is one of the networks with highest viewing figures in the US. So it's hardly like the pro-Trump voice has been silenced. Either way, the article wasn't talking about the Arizona audit. It's not even mentioned.

So are you lying? Or did you just see a video with a title you thought backed up your point and post it without even bothering to watch it, much less research and read the article it's talking about.
Pretty poor, either way.

59
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 26, 2021, 01:40:56 PM »
Your argument
I’m not making an argument.
I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy of you lambasting the press for cherry picking when that is your MO.

It doesn’t sound like the report found anything earth shattering which is going to blow this whole thing wide open. But do let me know when Trump is going to be reinstated if I wrong about that.

60
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 26, 2021, 08:27:58 AM »
you want to talk about FE in a thread about Trump now.
I’m not talking about FE.
I’m talking about you.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 170  Next >