Posts by Linda Collins3

I’ve noticed that movie theater sound levels have been getting louder and louder over the last few years.

Some theater chains—we all know which ones—actually brag about having the "most powerful sound" and stuff like that.

Lately, I’ve actually had to wear earplugs during movies because I think these noise levels are seriously dangerous for your hearing.
The most recent example was Blade Runner 2049, where the volume in certain scenes was uncomfortable even while wearing high-quality earplugs...

I really think society needs to address this. These insane, mindless volume levels are definitely a threat to everyone's hearing, especially kids.

Parents should be worried about their children, and the government needs to step in with regulations and fines for dangerous noise levels in theaters.

It looks like I'm not alone in thinking this. Here is a Google search regarding overly loud movie theaters:

theaters too loud

You'll see some results listing decibel measurements in certain theaters that they consider harmful to hearing. For some movies in some theaters, levels hit around 105 decibels, which is definitely dangerous and can cause permanent damage.
One link even mentions peaks hitting as high as 130 decibels!!!

I believe the situation in our American theaters is just as bad.

Personally, I find current theater volume levels to be Crime Cinema, and some operators are criminally irresponsible.

It didn't used to be like this.

bluemason3 said:Otherwise, the PDF would just turn into an unreadable mess of professional complainers.

But this is how you get those moderator "responses" where they basically cave in, because they let threats intimidate them into backing down from the rules...

I’m scrolling through some threads in the ban corner lately, and honestly, it’s pretty easy to see how some of these moderators are being biased and just plain wrong.

But apparently, I hear you aren't even allowed to comment on third-party stuff in that subforum.

It’s a shame, because letting people weigh in would actually help make this forum more objective, fair, and reputable...

Take that one thread about "spreading lies against Islam." One moderator there is insisting a user is lying based on a specific link, claiming all their sources back up the lie—but I checked, and that’s just not true; some of those links actually support what the user was saying.

So why can't we provide actual evidence to debunk a moderator's claim if the person being called out can't do it themselves for some reason?

A CNN moderator banned me and pulled my thread, "Have Soros interests infiltrated Reddit?" citing "forum rule violations."

Given that the declared goal of Open Society Foundations is social influence, how likely is it that Soros interests haven't seen a benefit in infiltrating the moderation teams of sites like Reddit, especially on political boards?

Unlikely, I’d say... Especially since the site's moderation seems to be trending heavily toward Soros-backed ideologies lately...

I'd love an explanation regarding which specific rules were broken (it would also be good practice for mods to actually explain those violations in a DM...).

If this is about some hypothetical rule against critiquing moderators within threads, let me be clear: I'm not attacking the staff themselves. I'm discussing the activities of Open Society Foundations, which clearly aim to gain massive influence over the internet, including right here on this platform.

This is a major political issue of public interest, considering how much weight Reddit carries in the American political landscape.

If you're uncomfortable addressing your own platform directly, would a general discussion about Soros infiltration across various internet forums and news sites be acceptable—noting that Reddit might not be an exception?

Best regards.

Jamie Edwards3 said:Of course they got hit with fines...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/30/misbe...-in-fines.html

But wait, didn't those penalties come right after the government was pumping about $80 billion a month into those banks?

First you hand them $80 billion every single month, then you turn around and "punish" them...

Lately, all the major news networks have been buzzing about how the US DOJ is hitting Deutsche Bank with a $14 billion fine, something that could potentially shake the entire global financial sector.

I haven't dug into any specific articles regarding the exact reasons for this penalty, but from what I've gathered through vague mainstream media reports, it seems to be tied to the sale of US Subprime lenders products that triggered the 2008 crisis.

So, I'm a little confused here...

Americans didn't just fail to penalize their own financial institutions that offloaded those subprime products; they actually stepped in to bail out and recapitalize many of them.

How does it make sense that a German bank is getting hammered now for selling the exact same financial products that US banks were peddling—the same ones the US government didn't punish, but actually saved?!

It feels totally contradictory...

I'm probably missing something, so if anyone knows the deal, please fill me in.

Why did the forum search feature disappear?

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...97111.full.pdf

A new study shows that long-term Marijuana use shrinks certain brain regions by reducing gray matter. At first, white matter tries to compensate, but eventually, that breaks down too, leading to lower IQ and various negative psychological shifts.

I see people getting flagged for not translating quotes into English, yet the moderators just drop these canned responses in English without any translation themselves...

Where's the consistency in that? 😉

So, it looks like the USA might be getting ready to ease up on some sanctions, but at the same time, they're still threatening anyone who actually tries to strike a real deal with Iran...

http://rt.com/op-edge/us-iran-france-sanctions-798/

Is anyone here still running an Intel Core i5?

http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/nsa-has-t...osoft-windows/

Apparently, the NSA has its own dedicated encryption key baked right into Windows. Honestly, who knows what that actually means for us...

http://rt.com/usa/dell-appelbaum-30c3-apology-027/

Dell is finally apologizing for selling hardware with NSA backdoors for years.

It probably makes sense, especially since according to Snowden, that’s exactly what they're doing... Maybe not every single machine, but if a company they're interested in orders a shipment of laptops or servers...

And as for the network side of things, Snowden reveals they even routinely embed spy hardware into servers before they're even delivered.

Snowden’s latest revelation is that the NSA is pre-installing spyware on computers before they even hit the shelves.

Can we actually trust major American brands like Dell, Apple, or HP not to bake spyware into hardware destined for NSA servers?

rustydrifter10 said:Hey. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

It’s against the rules to carry discussions over from one thread to another, including moving stuff from BC to PŽK. That said, if your issue is about something broader than just your own ban, feel free to start a new topic about it.

Thanks.

I think I'll skip starting a new thread. It’s easier to just address Mr. Smoogj's points from the original discussion rather than starting from scratch.

It sucks that you can't post in Ban Corner unless you're actually banned. It leaves some arguments unfinished, and it keeps other regular users from weighing in.

Anyway, I'll pick up where I left off with Smoogj next time I find myself in the doghouse. 😉

Anyone?

Since I can't reply to Mr. Smoogj's posts in the Trolling thread over in Ban Corner (probably because my ban expired?), I figured I'd ask here. That thread isn't actually about being banned, it's about him labeling one of my posts as trolling, so I feel like responding to Mr. Smoogj is totally fair even after a ban. Can I post a response to these specific comments in this subforum: Link1, Link2?

I think for a thread to belong in the "Law" forum, it needs to focus on the technicalities of existing law rather than social implications or how we feel about certain regulations—that’s clearly what the "Politics" section is for.

So, moderators really need to judge whether a topic is digging into legal mechanics or if it's just evaluating laws through a social lens.

Sure, you might end up breaking down a law technically during a debate about social issues, but that's usually just necessary so everyone knows exactly what they're talking about before they make their political point.

That kind of technical breakdown doesn't automatically make a topic "legal." If you're just clarifying the details to better frame a social or political argument, then the core of the discussion remains political. Just because a few technical elements pop up doesn't mean the whole thing should be moved to Law; those details are often just secondary to the broader political purpose of the debate.