Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
27 online now:
CosmicChimp, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,770 Year: 16,806/19,786 Month: 931/2,598 Week: 177/251 Day: 6/59 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 707 (682659)
12-04-2012 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Thugpreacha
12-04-2012 12:07 PM


Re: Chat on the blink?
I just got in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Thugpreacha, posted 12-04-2012 12:07 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(7)
Message 162 of 707 (697360)
04-24-2013 10:38 AM


He's starting to go too far
I know, I know. Alfred Maddenstein isn't worth the energy I'm spending to type this. And he's just an old troll who I shouldn't care about.

But in Message 232 he writes:

quote:
you quackademic lot are a bunch of arrogant presumptuous baboons who got no clue even about who your baboonish wives associated with last week

I think that goes too far. There's no reason to insult our wives other that to deliberately start a fight. We don't need that shit here.

And I'm not even married.


Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2013 12:51 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply
 Message 164 by hooah212002, posted 04-24-2013 5:51 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 707 (751830)
03-06-2015 11:12 AM


Discussion problem

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 383 of 707 (767945)
09-03-2015 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by marc9000
09-03-2015 7:22 PM


Re: forum rules
In checking the moderator guidelines, I see no indication that some rules are much more important than others.

Then disagree with them and quit participating.

if actual discussions are desired by the moderation.

We're not losing any "actual discussions" if we comply with admin's requests on this particular matter.

Nonscientific ridiculousness has no place in the Scientific Forums.

Basically: Shut up, marc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by marc9000, posted 09-03-2015 7:22 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 399 of 707 (769176)
09-17-2015 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 398 by Coyote
09-17-2015 12:04 AM


Re: Requested features
Two features that may be useful for this board are the ability to totally block posts from a particular poster, or to selectively block a particular thread--to make either of them "as if they never happened."

I can already do that. I don't read posts from some posters and I don't open threads that I don't want to see.

I can think of some practical applications for these features...

Blinding yourself so that you don't have to resist temptation?

Don't get me wrong: blocking features are nice to have.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Coyote, posted 09-17-2015 12:04 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 443 of 707 (778262)
02-18-2016 5:13 PM


This isn't Facebook, and we don't want ads, JonF
I may be over-reacting, but this really rubbed me the wrong way.

Message 154

quote:
One of the occupiers is suing the gummint for literally being a tool of Satan. And much, much more. Of course no Federal judge or lawyer is empowered to hear the case. You will not believe the damages she wants!

Oregon militant accuses feds of committing ‘works of the devil'


This is some mutha-fucking click-bait right here. The author has become an advertisement. It is even complete with the "you won't believe X!" that you see all over Facebook's click-bait.

It's already a violation of the bare link rule, but this type of post in particular needs to never become a thing here.

JonF, you have become an ad.

You should have just made you point and you should have just told us how much she wants. You should not bait us into clicking on your link, that is some serious bullshit right there.

Your post was bad, and you should feel bad. And you should promise to not be an ad anymore.


Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2016 5:39 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 449 by JonF, posted 03-08-2016 8:19 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 445 of 707 (778268)
02-18-2016 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by Theodoric
02-18-2016 5:39 PM


Re: This isn't Facebook, and we don't want ads, JonF
I didn't call the article an ad, I called JonF an ad. And of course I didn't click on the link. The reason it pissed me off is because the post was click-bait. It had nothing to with the content of the article, ya dingus.

ABE: the author I referred to was the author of Message 154, JonF.

Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2016 5:39 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 450 of 707 (779770)
03-08-2016 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 449 by JonF
03-08-2016 8:19 AM


Re: This isn't Facebook, and we don't want ads, JonF
Sorry you didn't like it. It was posted in many mainstream places, and a quick Google would confirm it.

Your Message 154 was posted in many mainstream places?

The message you submitted here, and not the article you linked to, is what I'm complaining about.

The message you submitted was a click-bait ad and has no place here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by JonF, posted 03-08-2016 8:19 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by JonF, posted 03-08-2016 10:24 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 452 of 707 (779792)
03-08-2016 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by JonF
03-08-2016 10:24 AM


Re: This isn't Facebook, and we don't want ads, JonF
The story was posted in many places. It's a true story. I saw no evidence of issues with the link I posted.

I'm not talking about the story that you linked to, I'm talking about the message that you posted here at EvC: Message 154

The issue is that your Message 154 is click-bait. Here it is again (in its entirety):

One of the occupiers is suing the gummint for literally being a tool of Satan. And much, much more. Of course no Federal judge or lawyer is empowered to hear the case. You will not believe the damages she wants!

Oregon militant accuses feds of committing ‘works of the devil'

From wiki:

quote:
Clickbait headlines typically aim to exploit the "curiosity gap", providing just enough information to make the reader curious, but not enough to satisfy their curiosity without clicking through to the linked content.

You even copied the click-bait style of Facebook with your "You will not believe the damages she wants!".

I'd just hate to see this place get all shitty like Facebook, and we should all hold ourselves to a quality of posts that is higher than that.

Just don't be an ad and post click-bait. It's disgusting and this is not the place for that.

As I said in my original complaint:

quote:
You should have just made you point and you should have just told us how much she wants. You should not bait us into clicking on your link, that is some serious bullshit right there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by JonF, posted 03-08-2016 10:24 AM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 453 by Theodoric, posted 03-08-2016 12:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 564 of 707 (806439)
04-25-2017 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 563 by Dr Adequate
04-25-2017 2:13 PM


Re: DJJ Spamming
Time to bust out the ban hammer, Percy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-25-2017 2:13 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 601 of 707 (809384)
05-18-2017 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 598 by Davidjay
05-17-2017 6:36 PM


ABE: Whoops, not a discussion thread. Content hidden, peak to read.
Kiss My Ass, and Fuck you, I can write whatever I fucking want
to their opposition, just because they are frustrated and losing a debate.

Ha! That's a lie.

When Cats Eye states.
Fuck you, kiss my Ass
to me, it is not civil nor respectful...

You don't deserve respect.

And are you gonna cry all day, crybaby?

Edited by New Cat's Eye, : ABE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 598 by Davidjay, posted 05-17-2017 6:36 PM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 602 by Davidjay, posted 05-20-2017 10:12 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019