Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 29, 2024, 2:09 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The white privilege to terrorize
#31
RE: The white privilege to terrorize
(May 4, 2020 at 11:18 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:
(May 4, 2020 at 12:38 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: There was this bunch of guys in 1776 running around with guns defying the government that would find your silly hippie notions laughable.

It’s a shame that the guys storming state capitols with guns have largely been doing so while siding with a tyrant who fancies himself as a dictator this time around.
And simple fact that not every group of heavily armed wacko's proclaiming they are the harbingers of freedom are the American revolutionaries . In fact history shows disturbing tendency of the opposite .
"Change was inevitable"


Nemo sicut deus debet esse!

[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]



 “No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM


      
Reply
#32
RE: The white privilege to terrorize
Quote:NOTE:  This forum has rules, so you should care about quoting members accurately.  See #18. 

Your "renegade" quoting style of deleting usernames from your responses fails to alert member that they are being addressed by you, and you're reproducing members' content without giving proper credit/citing your source.

As an aside, Staff have had a bit of a chin wag about this and the upshot is...no. Leaving a poster's name out of a quoted response doesn't violate the rule against quoting inaccurately, since it doesn't alter the content of what is being responded to. And - it the cases where it happens - it really doesn't appear to present a difficulty in determining who is being responded to.

That being said, it's generally a good idea to include the name of the author of the post to which you're responding, but failing to do so doesn't rise to the level of an actionable violation of the Rules.

Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Reply
#33
RE: The white privilege to terrorize
That being said, it's generally a good idea to include the name of the author of the post to which you're responding, but failing to do so doesn't rise to the level of an actionable violation of the Rules.












That's good. :-)




Reply
#34
RE: The white privilege to terrorize
Luckily we still have one group that it's okay to stereotype.
Reply
#35
RE: The white privilege to terrorize
What?
Men?
:-)




Reply
#36
RE: The white privilege to terrorize
(May 5, 2020 at 7:44 am)Little lunch Wrote: What?
Men?
:-)

Luckily, I'm not white. I'm Oirish.
Reply
#37
RE: The white privilege to terrorize
(May 5, 2020 at 7:54 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:
(May 5, 2020 at 7:44 am)Little lunch Wrote: What?
Men?
:-)

Luckily, I'm not white. I'm Oirish.

Welcime to Earth.. Which direction is the planet Oiri?
Reply
#38
RE: The white privilege to terrorize
(May 5, 2020 at 10:34 am)onlinebiker Wrote:
(May 5, 2020 at 7:54 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Luckily, I'm not white. I'm Oirish.

Welcime to Earth.. Which direction is the planet Oiri?
Right up it, mate. Razz
Reply
#39
RE: The white privilege to terrorize
(May 5, 2020 at 5:15 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:
Quote:NOTE:  This forum has rules, so you should care about quoting members accurately.  See #18. 

Your "renegade" quoting style of deleting usernames from your responses fails to alert member that they are being addressed by you, and you're reproducing members' content without giving proper credit/citing your source.

As an aside, Staff have had a bit of a chin wag about this and the upshot is...no. Leaving a poster's name out of a quoted response doesn't violate the rule against quoting inaccurately, since it doesn't alter the content of what is being responded to. And - it the cases where it happens - it really doesn't appear to present a difficulty in determining who is being responded to.

That being said, it's generally a good idea to include the name of the author of the post to which you're responding, but failing to do so doesn't rise to the level of an actionable violation of the Rules.

Boru

I disagree that it presents no difficulty determining who's being responded it to; particularly in a high traffic thread where there may be multiple responses or even pages between posts. Additionally, folks are unaware they're being addressed without returning through the thread and searching for a response or happening to notice that they've been quoted. 

There's simply no good reason to be going out of one's way DELETE members names before responding them. It's obviously done to hinder other people's to ability to make a rebuttal. It's poor form; not to mention a total bitch-made PUSSY move.

But--your house, your rules. 
So whatever. Big Grin
Reply
#40
RE: The white privilege to terrorize
(May 5, 2020 at 1:22 pm)Athene Wrote:
(May 5, 2020 at 5:15 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: As an aside, Staff have had a bit of a chin wag about this and the upshot is...no. Leaving a poster's name out of a quoted response doesn't violate the rule against quoting inaccurately, since it doesn't alter the content of what is being responded to. And - it the cases where it happens - it really doesn't appear to present a difficulty in determining who is being responded to.

That being said, it's generally a good idea to include the name of the author of the post to which you're responding, but failing to do so doesn't rise to the level of an actionable violation of the Rules.

Boru

I disagree that it presents no difficulty determining who's being responded it to; particularly in a high traffic thread where there may be multiple responses or even pages between posts. Additionally, folks are unaware they're being addressed without returning through the thread and searching for a response or happening to notice that they've been quoted. 

There's simply no good reason to be going out of one's way DELETE members names before responding them. It's obviously done to hinder other people's to ability to make a rebuttal. It's poor form; not to mention a total bitch-made PUSSY move.

But--your house, your rules. 
So whatever. Big Grin

It's called "being a petty cunt".
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Militias/BS white anxiety and toilet paper. Brian37 10 1669 October 29, 2020 at 1:21 pm
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  White liberals are the true racists Sammin 55 5529 October 23, 2018 at 7:59 pm
Last Post: Dr H
  White Christians are in retreat Minimalist 0 309 October 21, 2018 at 6:29 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
Shocked Do you think Trump will be arrested or kicked out of the White House soon? WinterHold 32 4588 July 25, 2018 at 3:40 pm
Last Post: John V
  One Less Cunt In The White House Minimalist 0 425 June 5, 2018 at 8:34 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  The SPLC - All White at the Top John V 29 4860 April 24, 2018 at 10:05 am
Last Post: Mister Agenda
  White House Gun Meeting Silver 23 2742 March 1, 2018 at 2:03 pm
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  The White House, an adult daycare center. Jehanne 3 1005 October 9, 2017 at 1:13 pm
Last Post: Crossless2.0
  The White House meets Westeros Silver 2 612 July 16, 2017 at 1:39 pm
Last Post: Silver
  Elon Musk Quits White House Advisor Role Silver 11 3551 June 2, 2017 at 1:27 pm
Last Post: Thumpalumpacus



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)