Get rid of post your... junk threads

[FlyingJesus]

Just keep repeating "you can't read" and -rep me rather than actually respond when I tear your posts apart, it makes you look great. I keep responding because you keep being wrong, and I know how huge your ego is already without the extra excuse of me not replying so you can claim to be right.

[GommeInc]

Just keep repeating "you can't read" and -rep me rather than actually respond when I tear your posts apart, it makes you look great. I keep responding because you keep being wrong, and I know how huge your ego is already without the extra excuse of me not replying so you can claim to be right.

Since you're the only one having problems reading the rule and the only one wanting the rule to be changed for no reason this thread and your argument has been a waste of time. If you can't figure out that the opposite of encourage is discourage, and that's what the rule is against, threads which discourage discussion, then God help you. No one seems to be agreeing with you that the rule needs changing. If you have problems with moderators dealing with threads then go to this forum to query decisions or this forum to complain about a member of staff.

Since your point was that the rule should be changed to allow these threads, which has been debunked since clearly it does as threads are always being made asking what you are doing (this summer, where you last travelled to), you're asking for a change to the rule despite the rule already allowing these threads. Fine logic. Change for the sake of change.

[FlyingJesus]

I haven't once said that encourage/discourage aren't opposites btw, I've said that they are not the only possibilities which ought to be extremely clear especially since you've been given examples. You seem totally unable to carry any argument to its logical conclusion even when it's your own postulation. And my point since then has been that part of the rule is unnecessary and just causes problems if we accept that it does already allow for these threads. That is not change for the sake of changes, it's change for the sake of clarity and to combat obvious moderator abuses.

[GommeInc]

I haven't once said that encourage/discourage aren't opposites btw, I've said that they are not the only possibilities which ought to be extremely clear especially since you've been given examples. You seem totally unable to carry any argument to its logical conclusion even when it's your own postulation. And my point since then has been that part of the rule is unnecessary and just causes problems if we accept that it does already allow for these threads. That is not change for the sake of changes, it's change for the sake of clarity and to combat obvious moderator abuses.

It is change for the sake of change. You want the rule changed to allow these threads. You said so here.

Since these threads are not against the rules, as otherwise they wouldn't even be on the forum, it is change for the sake of change. It isn't unnecessary either, since it makes it clear that threads that only want short, one or two word answers" are not promoting discussion as they're literally asking for "just short, one or two word answers". If a thread asks for your to post "just a cake", it clearly is not promoting a discussion.

Also, if you think moderators are abusing their powers report them, not push for a rule to be changed.

EDIT: The only thing that needs changing in the rule is "repeatably" to "repeatedly".

[FlyingJesus]

Back to your definitions not matching up with your conclusions: see here. If support = promotion and potential = support then potential = promotion, something neither of us apparently believe despite your repetition of these definitions, but if we do stick with those then the only way in which a thread can possibly not be promoting discussion (without falling foul of any other rule breaks) is by starting off locked. Feel free to carry on ignoring that if you want but it won't make you right. I believe you were the one who claimed that the "and" in the rule meant that both parts had to be true for it to be a rulebreak.

[GommeInc]

Back to your definitions not matching up with your conclusions: see here. If support = promotion and potential = support then potential = promotion, something neither of us apparently believe despite your repetition of these definitions, but if we do stick with those then the only way in which a thread can possibly not be promoting discussion (without falling foul of any other rule breaks) is by starting off locked. Feel free to carry on ignoring that if you want but it won't make you right. I believe you were the one who claimed that the "and" in the rule meant that both parts had to be true for it to be a rulebreak.

Promote and potential are not the same thing. Also, making up an argument for someone is delusional. So, actually quote me rather than make an argument up.

Honestly, just give up - it's only you wanting the rule changed. Since you said in this post that the rule does not allow for these threads, yet clearly it does and can under any definition of promote (it's not my definition - it is the defintion). I'm noticing you seem to not be replying to this part of my posts, suggesting you are trying to deny what you've said (which is familiar to the "rape" thread you messed up because you don't know what it means).

Again, this argument is still going yet it's only you who seems to have a problem with the rule :rolleyes: Did you ignore my post on purpose? Well obviously you did, hence why you're going back on an old argument that was debunked ages ago.

Tell me again where Wrestlemania is asking for "just" "short, one or two word answers" :rolleyes:

[FlyingJesus]

jfc I'm not saying that promotion and potential are the same thing; the definitions you quoted are.

The word promote means:

"support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of."

The rule doesn't need changing. To support something, is to "bear all or part of the weight of; hold up." It also further means "to be capable of bearing; withstand"

As these threads are capable of bearing a discussion they are not against the rule

You literally in words on the screen said that being capable of having a discussion (ie: potential) is the same thing as promoting it. There's your quote, I'm not making anything up. My point since that has been that if that's the case, even threads which ask you not to discuss the topic aren't against the rule either so that part needs removing since it cannot be contravened. I don't know why I've had to say this so many times.

As for the Wrestlemania thread, it clearly says "yes or no?". If it has to have the word "just" for you to be able to comprehend that it's asking for one of two answers then you have no right at all telling anyone how to read.

[GommeInc]

jfc I'm not saying that promotion and potential are the same thing; the definitions you quoted are.



You literally in words on the screen said that being capable of having a discussion (ie: potential) is the same thing as promoting it. There's your quote, I'm not making anything up. My point since that has been that if that's the case, even threads which ask you not to discuss the topic aren't against the rule either so that part needs removing since it cannot be contravened. I don't know why I've had to say this so many times.

As for the Wrestlemania thread, it clearly says "yes or no?". If it has to have the word "just" for you to be able to comprehend that it's asking for one of two answers then you have no right at all telling anyone how to read.

So you ignored the bit where I said "All threads have potential, but not all threads promote it" :rolleyes: Yet again you prove you do not look at the bigger picture :rolleyes: As @The Don noticed, you look at the start of an argument and forget to read the rest for context.

Where does Wrestlemania say post "yes or no?" It says:

Any watching it? I'm gonna attempt

Don't follow wrestling but my brother does and he's gonna watch it lol so i'm gonna join him until I fall asleep woo

I don't see it asking "post just yes or no". Do you really need people to post at the end of each thread "Discuss?" Are you really that simple?

[FlyingJesus]

So you ignored the bit where I said "All threads have potential, but not all threads promote it" :rolleyes: Yet again you prove you do not look at the bigger picture :rolleyes: As @The Don noticed, you look at the start of an argument and forget to read the rest for context.

Yes obviously calling you out for changing your mind is ignoring your post. And just repeating yourself is not proving anything; if you don't think potential is promotion (which is quite right, it isn't) then why did you say it was with your use of definitions? There isn't a bigger picture, these are the words you said. You're yet again ignoring the point of my post in order to talk about something else because you don't have a real answer for it.

Where does Wrestlemania say post "yes or no?" It says:


I don't see it asking "post just yes or no". Do you really need people to post at the end of each thread "Discuss?" Are you really that simple?

No, but you apparently feel that the opposite is true - namely that unless a thread says not to discuss things it is actively promoting discussion - and that this is a universal law in spite of the definitions that you yourself were working with. You try telling me that I'm not looking at context and then ignore it completely for my posts where the mention of that thread was clearly an example of why your reasoning doesn't hold up.

[Kardan]

I wonder what will happen to these threads!!!