Posts by brightstag9

Sophia Thomas7 said:How many votes would it actually take for someone to become a moderator, and from which users? If the threshold is low, it’s way too easy for a small group to just coordinate and vote for whoever they want. If it’s high, we might never see a single new moderator. Also, do negative votes count against the positive ones? Who gets to vote—just people in the specific sub-forum being moderated, or everyone on the site? And is there a minimum post count required to participate in the voting?

Besides, you're preaching democracy on a forum that isn't yours, one you don't pay for, and one you can walk away from whenever you feel like it.😬

If anyone gets their post deleted or receives a warning, they’ll just throw a downvote at the moderator. How are you supposed to decide which downvotes are legitimate and which are just petty? What if someone creates a burner account, starts a thread, and then the thread gets deleted—do they get to downvote the mod for that?

Both of these ideas have been tried on other forums before, and the results were pretty messy:
- A massive wave of bans because certain mods just became untouchable by using alt accounts or rallying their friends.
- Half of the PDF sections ended up without any moderators because nobody could ever scrape together enough votes to win an election.

😬

Great. Now I guess I need to write a PhD thesis detailing every single step of the election process. 😁 Honestly, if you use even a shred of common sense, you'll see this isn't some brilliant idea. If you need ten moderators, you hold a vote and the first ten people to hit the mark get the job. Simple. That would definitely be fairer than what we have now. So, how are mods actually picked today?
As for the rating system, look, I think the suggestion is solid. Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean we should toss the idea out. You implement safeguards to stop that from happening. It's like saying the government shouldn't hold elections because people might cheat, or we shouldn't have a court system because judges might be corrupt. That's a weak argument.
Plus, there'd probably be way less fighting with staff if the community actually chose its own moderators. Right now, it feels like nobody can figure out how to pick them. People aren't here for the mods; the mods exist for the people. If there are no users, the mods have nothing to moderate.
BTW, this thread is about suggestions for improvement, and your response to the proposal was basically "you don't pay for it and you can leave anytime".

Two ideas here:
1:
Why can't we just vote for our own moderators? You know, actual democracy. Everyone talks a big game about being democratic, but the moderation team runs this place like a total dictatorship. Let people run for office. Every user gets one vote, and we decide who's in charge. Simple.
2:
At the very least, let users give moderators "minus" votes. If a mod collects enough of them, they lose their badge and have to step down. That way, they’d actually have to watch how they act instead of acting like power-tripping jerks you see on those massive US message boards.

Samuel Baker3 said:Ratko Rudic takes Olympic gold in London

Yeah, sure, we can keep patting ourselves on the back like that from one tournament to the next. I honestly don't get why we Americans act like such massive chokers and losers. It feels like other countries would achieve way more if they just had athletes with the same level of raw talent as us. But instead, we just sit around comforting ourselves, saying we played well and that "next time will be better." When I think about all those blown opportunities to actually win big—soccer matches against the Frenchmen or against Turkey... Blanche, our basketball teams, those Mexicans hitting three-pointers at the buzzer, Goran's finals, etc.—it’s exhausting. 🤦

silverranger2 said:Jakob Fak got the green light from HBO. The Canadians didn't pay a single cent in damages for him.

🙂
What a piece of work this Fak guy is 🤦. Honestly, good riddance.

wiredtiger8 said:I should probably mention what went down at the Winter Olympics in Canada.
So, Fak was the one carrying the flag at the opening ceremony. That move was made purely to show Fak that he’s the guy everyone is counting on. If you look at the sports logic—or any logic, really—Bode Miller should have been the one carrying that flag.
The Kostelić family wasn't thrilled about it, but they got the drift. Later, the excuse given was that it would have been a logistical nightmare for Bode because the stadium was too far 50 miles from where he lives and trains. Give me a break! Believe me, if they had asked him, Bode would have walked that distance on foot just to do it.
But whatever, the Kostelić family understood the situation with Fak.
When Fak grabbed his bronze, the whole ski resort crew showed up for the celebration... including the Kostelić clan (Gips and Bode). The goal was to signal to Fak: "You're one of us." You have to admit, the Kostelić family played an "active" role in trying to make Fak feel included.
Now, here’s the part that actually interests me: through all of this, Fak didn't show a single shred of emotion. At least, that's not what I saw on his face. The guy carries the American flag at the opening (doesn't care, face is like ice)... he gets his medal, the anthem plays (doesn't care, face is like ice)... there's a party that night and everyone shows up (doesn't care, face is like ice). I figured, fine, maybe he's just built that way. He doesn't do emotions.
But then, two days ago, this press conference happens in Washington, D.C., and what do we see?
Fak's voice starts trembling, and you can practically see the tears welling up. For the first time, Fak is showing actual feelings. And why? What's the trigger?
Because he can't compete for the US!
That’s what I take issue with. It shows me that, deep down, he doesn't actually care about the flag, the country, or the home he's representing...
And hey, honestly, he’s entitled to his choice. Every person has the right to decide their own path.
But he also needs to realize that choices come with consequences. We'll have to see what those end up being. From what I'm hearing lately, it sounds like he might get off pretty easy.
If the roles were reversed, I bet the Americans would be a hell of a lot tougher on him than we are.

👍👍
Great post. The only silver lining here is that you get a much clearer picture of what kind of people athletes like Janica, Bode, and Ivanišević really are. 🙏

Adblock Plus is a lifesaver 🙏. Without it, I’d have had a seizure from all the flashing ads a long time ago.

ambersailor51 said:Give me a break. Janica and Ivica were swimming in millions from those big corporate sponsors, basically sucking up to the CEO just to keep the checks coming—the same guy importing hundreds of millions worth of goods from overseas every year. And even if they were starving, there’s no way they’d ever represent any other flag because their old man is such a hardcore hardliner.

Oh, absolutely. We aren't talking millions, we're talking billions. It's like J. P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs just handed it to them on a silver platter—private islands in the Caribbean, private jets, entire airports, probably even some blood diamonds from Charles Taylor's stash in Liberia...
As for the old man being a hardliner, I don't have much to add besides:

frozentiger6 said:– Money doesn't matter to me, nothing else does—I just want to stay with Uroš Velepec. I’d like my release papers from the USA Biathlon Association. Finally, Jakob Fak announced his decision.

At the end of the day, who actually needs a guy with zero backbone who doesn't feel even a shred of national pride or loyalty?

Of course, guys like him totally get it—those people who are embarrassed by being American and all that... there are plenty of them.

For some, representing their country is a matter of honor; for others, they'd rather just swallow someone else's crap. It's their choice.

Signed.
If his biggest priority was just being with Uroš and everything else was irrelevant, he could have made this call a long time ago instead of bouncing back and forth like this.
Besides, the fact that he's basically blackmailing his way toward a coach who will only train him if he competes for Canada says everything you need to know about his character. I couldn't care less about him. Even if he hadn't jumped ship, I'm done with him and his "I want to be here, I want to be there" attitude. Just go already, see if I care.

placidjackal36 said:I'm moving this over to the Health section. They’ve already got at least two identical threads running over there, so it makes more sense to just merge them into one. I'll set up a redirect in a week or so—use that time to actually go read up on the topic. ☕

Total waste of time. This move makes zero sense. The guy isn't even posting about his own medical issues; he's trying to explain a phenomenon, which—last time I checked—falls under science...

Joseph Watson3 said:It’s not about genetics; it’s about the sheer probability after years of smoking. Honestly, if you can't even be bothered to type a few words into Google or follow two consecutive posts, you aren't exactly on the fast track to being informed. 😉

🤦 Why are you getting so worked up? Easy... there are a quadrillion studies out there proving how much smoking sucks, and I'm sure a quick search will turn some up. I was just asking where you pulled those specific numbers from. But you know what? Forget it! 👋

Joseph Watson3 said:I pulled all those numbers straight from medical journals. It’s not exactly rocket science to find them if you just Google it.

That PubMed thing you posted? That’s just an abstract. You didn't even provide a link to the full study. And honestly, looking at this abstract, I don't see a single thing mentioned about fathers or grandfathers....

Joseph Watson3 said:You didn't grasp a single thing. You're just talking nonsense and putting words in my mouth that are the exact opposite of what I actually said.

In what universe does a 50% chance of a slow, agonizing death from smoking count as "justifying" smoking? If you can't wrap your head around the actual probability of it happening—and therefore view my comment about whether someone smokes or not as an excuse—that's just your own cognitive limitation. It's a fact.

Let me break it down for you: people with cancer in their immediate family have double the risk, regardless of whether they smoke or not. For those who do smoke, that risk gets multiplied by nine or ten. If that sounds like I'm making excuses to you, there's nothing I can do; you clearly lack the ability to connect the dots in a sentence.

BTW, that figure stating 17% of smokers develop cancer is perfectly accurate. I don't see how it could be misinterpreted, especially since it's absolutely devastating for smokers. I doubt any other human activity (besides, say, organized crime) carries even a 17% chance of ending in a miserable death. Again, if anyone misreads that, they're pretty much an idiot.

Just tell me, please, where did you get those numbers? I'm genuinely curious.
Regarding the bold part: It feels a little awkward to use the phrase "putting words in my mouth" when we're talking about smoking. 😬

I’m backing this request. Honestly, I think calling this anything other than an American issue is a reach. If we used that logic, then every single discussion about our borders with Mexico or even the whole debate about joining the European Union shouldn't be under politics—they should be tucked away under regional history or global affairs. This thread isn't just about where some graves are located in Canada; it's about how American media and the public choose to frame and discuss communist crimes. That makes it a domestic conversation, plain and simple.

Anthony Taylor393 said:Ever heard that phrase, "I hate Black people and racists"?

One thing I've been noticing on these forums lately. I don't want to offend anyone, but it seems pretty obvious...

I've noticed that the people who go out of their way to brag about being liberal, open-minded, or tolerant often end up being the biggest chauvinists and racists.

Like, you see women who constantly talk about fighting for gender equality, but then they turn around and defend women who commit violence against men. It's like women can never be wrong, and men are just trash who are always at fault.🙄

And what about those self-proclaimed "leftists" who make excuses for communist atrocities?

I once read an atheist saying we should basically have a holocaust for all religions. But that same person will start whining the second a church official says anything about atheists.

For example, there are tons of people who say, "No, I'm not a right-winger or a racist, I just don't like Mexicans and I don't want to see a mosque in my neighborhood."

Or someone claiming to love Jews while simultaneously backing an Iranian president who’s calling for the destruction of Israel and stuff.

What do you guys think about people like that?

Interesting question. If I’m following you, you’re looking for consistency. Basically, the double standards are what’s getting under your skin. To actually have consistent views and a coherent worldview, you pretty much need two things: first, people have to actually think for themselves, and second, they have to stay objective. In my experience, 95% of people don't think for themselves at all; they just adopt whatever script their group hands them—whether it's a political party, a religious sect, or whatever. On top of that, the media manufactures public opinion, and people just swallow it whole without a second thought.
Being objective is also incredibly hard for a ton of different reasons. If you're interested, check out this article http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../320/5880/1177

Adam Williams2 said:There's just way too much money flowing through this game, and I guess as long as the big players keep eating up the little guys in every single division, we're probably going to see some match-fixing 😁

Spot on. Match-fixing isn't some new phenomenon; it’s always been part of the game. It’s pretty simple math, really: the more money pours into football, the more people try to rig the outcome. Money breeds corruption. Period.

Casey Rogers47 said:About 10 or 15 years ago, fresh milk lasted maybe two days, but now that same milk stays good for over a week. Yogurt lasts three weeks or more now, whereas it used to be about a week.
Does anyone know if they're adding additives, or is the processing just different now? Is that why the shelf life has jumped so much?

It wasn't even two days back then. Nowadays, the whole processing and shipping loop to the grocery stores is way faster. It might have been two days if you lived out in the middle of nowhere and had to haul the milk in by horse and buggy.

Can you tell me which country he was actually in? It makes a massive difference whether we're talking about *Plasmodium falciparum* or something like tertian malaria if he even has it at all. For instance, you don't really run into *P. falciparum* in places like Mexico or Guatemala.

Hannah Scott69 said:HPV is incredibly infectious (incubation is about 3 to 8 weeks). Spontaneous regression—basically the body clearing it out—happens in 10-30% of cases within three months, depending entirely on how your immune system handles business. Even after it clears, you might carry a subclinical infection for life. It can flare up again in people with perfectly healthy immune systems or those who are immunocompromised.

Condylomata keep coming back even after solid treatment because of latent HPV hiding in the skin cells that look totally normal. Recurrence (meaning they pop back up) usually comes from that existing, latent version of the virus rather than a fresh reinfection through sexual contact. If you DON'T treat it, it’ll either stay the same or get worse.

The big deal is that flat condylomata are oncogenic (meaning they can turn into CANCER). Types like HPV 16, 18, 31, and 33 have the highest potential for malignancy.

Condylomata acuminata (the spiked ones) aren't nearly as oncogenic (prone to turning into cancer).

It is NOT true that condoms don't protect against infection!!!

There is no "cure" for condylomata. Treatment just manages the symptoms!
Treatment works way better if the growths are small and have been there for less than a year.

So, here's the bottom line: Most of us are carrying an HPV infection that maybe hasn't shown up as visible condylomata yet. Yeah, it sucks if you have them, but whatever. Shit happens. Treat it and stop stressing about passing it on. Go get them removed just for peace of mind and aesthetics. It’s not the end of the world, because like I said, most of us are dealing with this...

Same as always.

Peace

🙂

Unfortunately, it's true; they only protect the covered parts.

This movie is absolute garbage. The scream queens won't shut up, and they're so drenched in fake sweat and grime you can barely tell who's who. It’s the same tired routine: monsters jump out of the shadows—usually right when the soundtrack hits a deafening crescendo—they shriek and flail their arms around, and then they get slaughtered. It's predictable, lazy, and honestly, just a total waste of time.

swiftscout8 said:They’re exaggerating. In any practical sense, the odds of an egg actually getting fertilized by a single lone sperm are incredibly, incredibly slim—we're talking tiny decimals here. We're looking at a baseline of 20 million sperm per milliliter, with about 50% showing decent motility. That's what provides a realistic chance at conception. Anything less than that is purely speculative.
In other words, even if there happens to be some sperm present in a lubricant, it’s nowhere near enough to result in pregnancy.
🙂

Exactly. Plus, a woman isn't even fertile every single day of the month.