127 posts shown.
John Hill said:Now I'm just sitting here wondering which one she actually went with.😁
dustypuma5 said:So I was just sitting there ☕, then you show up and flash 🙂 like you're actually trying to get me into 🙂. I threw out 🤦 and 🙂 to make it look like I was 🙂 and just didn't care. Then you grabbed 🙂 and started 🧐, and I realized you'd probably even 🙂 if I didn't go along with it.
I just took 🙈 and said: fine, let's head to the bedroom.
I guess it’s all just about context. Honestly, we probably need a manual on how to use emojis properly. hehe
crimsonhound80 said:Basically, the Secretary is a nobody that nobody actually voted for.
crimsonhound80 said:If I'm reading this right, people are calling Kamala Harris, the head of the US Government, a total slut, a peasant, and a cow, and they're stopping there...
Kamala Harris leads the US Government and holds more power and responsibility than Barack Obama, who is mostly limited to ceremonial duties.
Daniel Ward87 said:Look, here’s my deal: I promise I’ll delete posts like that, but I won't hand out bans for them. Honestly, we can just agree that those kinds of posts are insulting and way below the standard of conversation here, which means they already break our general Forum rules. At the same time, calling public figures thieves, jerks, or anything else isn't exactly good etiquette. So, bottom line—anyone who slaps an "epithet" on a public figure gets a strike for violating the site rules. People are free to think someone like Čačić is a crook or a shady operator, but if you actually type it out, you're getting a ban. Like I said, I'm totally fine with that.
Whatever...👍
Look, there’s a massive difference between calling Stjepan Mason a "fatcat" and making fun of Franjo Harmon’s physical stature. Mocking someone for a disability they can't control is a much lower blow than criticizing a politician's lifestyle choices. Mason basically earned his reputation through his own actions, whereas attacking a physical trait like that is just plain wrong.
Daniel Ward87
EDIT: Let me repeat, it isn't the same thing to call Jimmy Carter "fat" or use specific racial slurs, versus mocking a physical attribute like we did with Ronald Reagan. The latter is more like mocking someone with a physical disability, and in my view, that's a much heavier violation because it's something a person can't control.Jimmy Carter basically earned his reputation for being heavy through his own actions, which isn't about any physical defect.
hollowtrucker77 said:hollowtrucker77, I’m talking about having actual class here
you know how it goes: keep it classy, even when you're talking about the deceased
hollowtrucker77 said:Well, if you ask me, there’s a massive difference here, and I’m not seeing how anyone could argue otherwise.
One guy is gone, nothing left but a fading memory and some old stories, while the other is still very much alive, walking free, and fully capable of standing up for himself or filing a lawsuit if he feels like it...
Samuel Baker3 said:Everything we've seen over the last two weeks doesn't matter anymore. After tomorrow's 60 minutes, you're either a winner or a loser.
History only remembers the winners. It’s like the greatest athlete in history used to say: if you come in second, you're just the best loser out there.
Carl Robinson6 said:The moderators still haven't provided any clarity on this:
1) What is the actual limit for chat topics? I’m curious as to what specific rules or authority dictates that having three chat topics is suddenly too many.
2) On what grounds were those three moved? Labeling them strictly as "chat" topics feels inaccurate; anyone reading them can see they center on very specific issues, like being a mistress or an adulteress.
3) Is there a cap on how many regulars can frequent a chat topic? How many new users need to join within a certain timeframe to prevent it from being flagged as a "closed group"?
4) IF we are following objective criteria for what constitutes a chat, why were all three removed at once despite their vastly different lengths, subject matters, and engagement levels?
5) Where did this sudden need for such aggressive, unreasoned intervention come from? These threads worked perfectly fine for years—they drew people in and actually helped the community.
2) On what basis are all three moved? They are labeled strictly as "chat" topics, yet anyone reading them can clearly see they aren't just small talk; people are discussing very specific issues like being a mistress, infidelity, or an adulteress.
3) How many regulars can be on a chat topic, and how many new people need to join within what timeframe before it's declared a "closed group"?
4) IF they actually meet objective criteria for being chats, why were all three removed at once, despite having totally different lengths, subjects, and communication styles?
5) Where did this need for a violent, aggressive, and baseless intervention come from? These threads worked perfectly fine for years, drew people in, and ultimately helped them.
Anthony Howard33 said:Honestly, how much longer are you actually planning to hold this spiteful grudge and just ignore the questions we've laid out so clearly? At this point, it’s crossing the line from stubbornness into just plain obnoxious behavior.
Give us straight, direct answers to the hyena's questions, and explain exactly why C-sunny got banned and had her thread shut down in the first place.
Just be upfront and tell us that none of us can start a new thread anymore, then leave us all alone with your three precious topics forever.
It's a complete disaster.👎
Running things this way is basically amateur hour—it's an absolute letdown regarding the moderators, and frankly, you guys should be disbanded immediately.
Either shut us down completely or stop messing with us by playing these pathetic little games.
Roger Allen3 said:There he is, finally giving us his take. 🤣
[/I]