Community spirit - "Off Topic"

[Vormav]

How about making rule that big quotations need to use:

Spoiler

Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text...

[ s p o i l e r ] [ / s p o i l e r ]? They are not going to annoy anyone this way.

We had this situation whit gregoo where simple quote of his post would force question, "u mad bro"?
But this way we can make some "paranoia" where everybody are quoting everybody

 

[bobsobol]

I think that's the answer. Ask for "large" quotations to be in [spoiler][quote=lastposter]I had something really big to say.[/quote][/spoiler]. Then we can keep against, "Ooh, quick edit... new reply. I never said that, see!". But not flood the screen with stuff we already read.

Actually, we can all see that you modified what you said... what we can't necessarily see is what you had said before you re-wrote history. XD

 

[Gregoo]

I see one drawback in your plan bob.
All your posts will end up between spoiler tags D:

 

[DarkKnightH20]

Haha that's true =p

A compilation of your posts Bob would result in a book longer than most dictionaries tt1: In fact, we're beginning to run out of epaper :tongue:

 

[bobsobol]

Thanks Gregoo. I'd thought of that, which is why I specifically said:-

"large" [highlight]quotations[/highlight]

Not original posts, coz I don't mind a TLDR WOT if it's original. Especially if it contains useful information.

I think you'll find I only quote parts of a multi-part question (argument, commentary or WHY) before replying to that part. I don't (often... if ever) quote the whole of the last, or originating post in a thread. I would actually rather "re. [URL="https://directwebx.ragezone.com/~ragezone/xenforo/index.php?posts/555/"]this post[/URL] by someone else" link to a previous post than quote it in it's entirety anyway.

I think I do, or may, quote a whole "small" post if it's been buried by other posts since. (fe. two different support requests on a release running at once, or two bug reports on a development)

It's having to re-read an entire WOT post to find the reason it was quoted was "Link dead, mirror plx?" :grr: That annoys me.

I find myself looking to see what part of that post the new poster is trying to draw my attention to for further consideration. So if it's a block quote of the whole post, and they haven't even added a [highlight]notice this bit here[/highlight] section to it... it draws my attention to absolutely nothing and only detracts from whatever it was that they wanted to add to the discussion. :

I think that starts to define what I find most irritating about such posts. I don't want to make a [highlight]rule[/highlight] which is too draconian and restricts how people choose to communicate too much. I just find such block quotes wasteful, messy and almost completely unnecessary.

Note: If my definition doesn't match anyone elses', (especially if you can think of good reasons to do it without spoiler tags) please say so before I add it to the post spec.

 

[SheenBR]

lol, so annoying... I've seen people quote a huge post just to say something like: "THANK YOU, IT WORKED"

prohibit it.

 

[DarkKnightH20]

 

[Gregoo]

Do other people find

You must be registered to see links

as annoying as I do?

That's a massive quote, and the post only relates to a single URL link in it.

I find it so annoying I'd like to make a rule against it, but that would be zealous if it's only me it bugs.

Bugs the crap out of me. But I do like it for when people randomly decide to remove all the valuable info from the post that's being quoted.

How about making rule that big quotations need to use:

Spoiler

Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text... Wall of text...

[ s p o i l e r ] [ / s p o i l e r ]? They are not going to annoy anyone this way.

We had this situation whit gregoo where simple quote of his post would force question, "u mad bro"?
But this way we can make some "paranoia" where everybody are quoting everybody

I think that's the answer. Ask for "large" quotations to be in [spoiler][/spoiler]. Then we can keep against, "Ooh, quick edit... new reply. I never said that, see!". But not flood the screen with stuff we already read.

Actually, we can all see that you modified what you said... what we can't necessarily see is what you had said before you re-wrote history. XD

I see one drawback in your plan bob.
All your posts will end up between spoiler tags D:

Haha that's true =p

A compilation of your posts Bob would result in a book longer than most dictionaries tt1: In fact, we're beginning to run out of epaper :tongue:

Thanks Gregoo. I'd thought of that, which is why I specifically said:-Not original posts, coz I don't mind a TLDR WOT if it's original. Especially if it contains useful information.

I think you'll find I only quote parts of a multi-part question (argument, commentary or WHY) before replying to that part. I don't (often... if ever) quote the whole of the last, or originating post in a thread. I would actually rather "re. [URL="https://directwebx.ragezone.com/~ragezone/xenforo/index.php?posts/555/"]this post[/URL] by someone else" link to a previous post than quote it in it's entirety anyway.

I think I do, or may, quote a whole "small" post if it's been buried by other posts since. (fe. two different support requests on a release running at once, or two bug reports on a development)

It's having to re-read an entire WOT post to find the reason it was quoted was "Link dead, mirror plx?" :grr: That annoys me.

I find myself looking to see what part of that post the new poster is trying to draw my attention to for further consideration. So if it's a block quote of the whole post, and they haven't even added a [highlight]notice this bit here[/highlight] section to it... it draws my attention to absolutely nothing and only detracts from whatever it was that they wanted to add to the discussion. :

I think that starts to define what I find most irritating about such posts. I don't want to make a [highlight]rule[/highlight] which is too draconian and restricts how people choose to communicate too much. I just find such block quotes wasteful, messy and almost completely unnecessary.

Note: If my definition doesn't match anyone elses', (especially if you can think of good reasons to do it without spoiler tags) please say so before I add it to the post spec.

Ok!

 

[bobsobol]

@Gregoo: :jaw: What did you do! :glare:

@DK: I would replace the word Java with C#, and the flower pot with the GL Teapot (VRML anyone?) but yea. Funny, and true.

 

[DarkKnightH20]

 

[Vormav]

My desktop

lulz Korea XD

You must be registered to see links

 

[bobsobol]

teehee

Is that your voice? I imagined that your voice will sound more

You must be registered to see links

So I was just surfing around YouTube reminiscing over old comedy, and found this:-

You must be registered to see links

Actually... nooo; that's me that is.

I still love the comedy of

You must be registered to see links

, and

You must be registered to see links

is still amazing if you get to see him doing stand up. (I think they don't speak any more )

 

[Vormav]

Re: Game.exe ICE-3

Funny thing is that those rules are universal... simply called "good manners". If you read rules like that on one forum you automatically will know how to behave on another. Some sections have specific rules but as long as you following "good manners" then chances are low that you will break any rule.

 

[bobsobol]

Re: Game.exe ICE-3

Well... we didn't have the "like" button when I started here, and on other forums without it a "thank you" post is often appreciated.

We don't have rules on (what is commonly known as) "cross-threading", (duplicating the same basic message or asking the same question in several threads) and that's been done here, frustratingly, recently. I know some forums which will insta-ban when anyone commits such a crime. XD

Different forums or other internet communities have different regulations on links and attachments, and ours have changed a few times. (as we changed hosts or upgraded vBulletin)

I would still say "always read the fine print". The absolute universal

You must be registered to see links

is to always check pinned topics for local convention. IMHO (I always try to before I post anywhere)

 

[Vormav]

Re: Game.exe ICE-3

Now realistically speaking you know that nobody reads the rules.
And netiquette is too long for someone who's not going to read rules anyway.
It's like christains and 10 commandments, most of them know rules +/- they would not tell you them (mainstream not zealots) in order or they would name 3-4 of them but most of them simply don't care about them, they trying to follow "golden rule" (do not do to others what you would not like yourself), if forum you can translate it to "do not write things you would not like to read yourself".

I think that there is no forum that allows you to post before you search if your question was not answered.
Even 4chan on /g/ have rule like that:
Support threads are allowed, but discouraged. Please consult a search engine before making such threads.

Despite those facts I do think that reading rules is important.
But it's not bad to "bend" rules here and there just a little, for some LuLz ofc

 

[bobsobol]

10 commandments

Spoiler

Hahaha:-

1. You shall have no other gods before GOD
2. You shall not make for yourself a craven image
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
10. You shall not covet anything that is your neighbours'.

I don't think I know any Christian who pays the slightest attention to the first 3. Muslims will, and most Jews make a much better "effort". (or you could say, they do it without taking it to extreme)

Many people seem to make excuses for 5 and 6. Particularly 6, it's okay to murder someone if they are a heathen or wear the wrong uniform or are about to murder someone else etc. etc.

So the ones people value are from 7 on down and I'm with Marxism on the whole "property is theft" thing so stealing, adultery and being jealous of someone elses' "possessions" is all meaningless. You can't possess a thing, let alone a person. You can only be it's "keeper" or "guardian".

However, I do believe that you should not interfere with the guardianship of another. f.e. if a man tends a shrub as his hedge, you shouldn't go and cut it to a different shape. More contemporarily, if a man is guardian of a Television in his living-room you should not "relocate" that Television. ("his living-room" being the space in the house he tends which he allocates as "living space")

In any case, netiquette just is. You learn it as you learn to share toys and play nice. Every community has rules, and I know forums which insist you quote the whole of the previous posters comment before replying to evidence how it was written at the time you wrote your response. I know companies which insist upon it in all internal eMail correspondence too. I know places where they insist you do not link to files hosted elsewhere and only ever attach, or the opposite.

I personally try to read such documents before joining a community on-line, and it bugs the hell out of me when people don't let you read the rules before signing up. :grr: I do not understand why anyone would not want to read rules. But I don't understand why people don't read, or at least skim, a license before installing software either. Though I must admit, I do not read the license when installing software for someone else.

 

[Vormav]

I personally try to read such documents before joining a community on-line, and it bugs the hell out of me when people don't let you read the rules before signing up.

I read the "document" and I'm no longer a christian

I think its sick to sell your daughter like in (Exodus 21:7)
Too bad that all mighty all loving all powerful god forgot to upgrade commandment nr 5 to version 1.1 (Honor your father and your mother and your children).
I just can't kill those who work on Sabbath (Exodus 35:2).
It such a relief that I don't have to do those horible things any more

I think it's same thing with forum rules, pplz cherry picking rules they like.


I have feeling that this move is going to rox my socks off

You must be registered to see links

 

[SheenBR]

this is just commom sense:

1. Honor your father and your mother.
2. You shall not murder.
3. You shall not commit adultery.
4. You shall not steal.

You dont do it because its wrong, not because dumbledore said it lol

You must be registered to see links

 

[bobsobol]

@Sheen: Well, I don't believe that people in the Western world do honour their parents. Many will dishonour them to the extent of taking their own lives in their teens, but most of us are selfish and lazy. Washing machines, vacuum cleaners, dishwashers and super-markets encourage us to be so. We don't want to care for our parents in their old age, take on the mantle of their career, or be limited to their title. We want lives of our own. As Vormav says, it should also say "and your children" because as parents we also leave a trail of poopie for future generations to clean up. How are you supposed to honour such "parents"?

I define murder as one or more human beings conspiring to end the life of another. Many nations implement the death penalty for criminal offences, wage wars and encourage the use of lethal force among their police. I consider all these acts "murder". But they are "socially acceptable" to people far more "religious" than I.

I know married couples, some church goers, who attribute the success of their marriage to "swinging" or "open relationships". Christians and Muslims have (at times) flirted with the idea of polygamy. This, is adultery, by the contract of the ten commandments.

True communists would not accept God, or Stealing to exist. Complete communism dictates that personal ownership is illegal. Theft is impossible, unless you steal from the state, because everything belongs to the state and the people. Nothing belongs to any one person. (It's actually not that different from monarchy, where everything belongs to the crown, your regent can re-allocate anything you consider to belong to your self any time they choose, and resistance to that re-allocation is high treason)

So, those things are not common sense, to the extent that many people would fervently disagree with one or other of them. Both in antiquary, and today. Despite the time past since those "laws" where first written, and despite the proclaimed faith of those people who may disagree with them.
--- EDIT --

PTBr client works with that leaked server I released

I suspect you have no idea who, or what Zippy is.

You must be registered to see links

Silly, and *very* embarrassing. :blush:
Much better examples of Frenglish from musical comedy genius Bill Baily.

You must be registered to see links

J'adore Docteur Qui! Et Davros? Oui, c'est un homme très mauvais. Le Daleks? Ils sont grande vilains.

@Vormav: You quote Exodus, which is the old testament. You may think this is a good example, because it is common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. (not to mention Rastafarianism, Zoroastrianism, Satanism† and a whole host of others) In fact, it is not ideal because the only reason most Christians leave such verse in the old testament is to illustrate the misunderstanding between man and God before the coming of their "Messiah". Satanist would read the bible as a book of evil, depicting the wrong that God has wrought upon existence. So your words are supporting the principals of that faith rather than dispelling the notion of faith all-together.

Spoiler

†Yes, sadly anti-faith faiths are as much a religion as any other. Without the Jews, Christians and Muslims there would be no Satanists.

The bible thumpers who come to my door get quite upset that I can agree with them that there is a single God but will not believe in a heaven, hell or Devil. How are they supposed to convert someone who already recognises God, but does not fear the fires of hell?... more to the point, how can they not see that fear inspires only hatred and aggression? No, I will not subscribe to that.

 

[Vormav]

[...]old testament is to illustrate the misunderstanding between man and God[...]

He basically wiped out whole planet with flood <_<
That's not a god, that's a dictator like Lim Dzong Il.
Imagine you made one thing wrong... instant hell, just because you got his words wrong.

But I get your point, pplz prefer new testament, I would say it's way better but still:

Revelation 2:22-23
New International Version (NIV)
22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

We already know that god is very vicious from old testament and he "punish children for their parents' sins to the third and fourth generation"
Still same god but in new testament. Less vicious because he is no longer based on Ares.


Mark 3:28-29
New International Version (NIV)
28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”

Most immoral thing I ever heard. So you can rape, murder and steal but if you accept Jesus before you die you will spend eternal life in heaven... no comment needed.


Luke 12:51-53
New International Version (NIV)
51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

Don't worry Jesus I never thought about you as positive character

Psalm 137:9
New International Version (NIV)

9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

I can continue this but I think that I made my point =P

If god of the bible exists than he is some kind of loving psychopath. Fortunately there is not slightest evidence that we are living in universe ruled by invisible monster yahweh.

Religion is just by-product of evolution. Look at this square:

...did I said square? But there is no square there... in same way you can define god