Posts by Steven Reed

Brandon Barnes85 said:Oof... that is a tough call to make. Honestly, you might be better off getting rid of the dogs just to be safe. Once that's done, you should really start studying pregnancy seriously so you don't accidentally eat the wrong thing or buy the wrong vitamins next time, and try to avoid too many ultrasounds since the radiation isn't great for the baby, plus you shouldn't let doctors do vaginal exams because there's a risk of opening up.
Around the halfway mark, you ought to start reading up on breastfeeding because that's the only right way to do it and babies need it for as long as possible. And whatever you do, don't take any medication during labor. Your job is just to suffer in silence.
Then, once you get home, you have to stare at your baby constantly to build that bond, and if you can, try not to even blink.

🤣🤣🤣🤣
I'm actually weeping 🙏 🙏

Samuel Ross60 said:And what if the baby and my two dogs all sleep in the bed together?
I mean, the dogs already sleep in here with us, so how am I supposed to explain that to the baby? And more importantly, how am I supposed to explain to the dogs that they aren't allowed in the bed anymore!?

~~~Thinking positively~~~

Hold on, hold on, HOLD IT RIGHT THERE!!!!!

You actually intend to keep those dogs near the baby???? 😲 😱 : calling Child Protective Services as we speak:
Do you have any idea what kind of bacteria those animals can pass onto a tiny, helpless little infant 😢
You—you—you absolute monster of a mother 😢 : shakes head:

🤣 🤣
Man, I love it—what a brilliant little troll you guys are 🤣

Carol Thompson76 said:^^
Just answering my own question here in case anyone else is wondering: you can actually make that change, but you have to go down to your home branch in person. 😢

Honestly, given how this bank operates, I’m just relieved they even allow it! 😈

Where on earth did you get that info?
The request itself can be signed at any branch—they just forward it to the headquarters, assuming their internal bureaucracy even allows for such things to happen there

stormyraven14 said:So—after two or three strikes, I get a moderator gig over at Cars?

hmmmmmmmmmm 🙂

You're too optimistic 👋
—I'd probably need at least fifty or sixty strikes before they even look my way.😢

William Bennett53 said:Fine—I’ll get right on drafting an email to the CEO requesting larger avatars and a "Like" button. 😉

😲 😱

Moderator, please issue a warning card for this blatant trolling from Dorian 🙂

Sarah Vaughn94 said:Good afternoon,

So, I just received my new debit card in the mail and went ahead and activated it about half an hour ago, feeling quite ready to get things moving. I attempted to jump online to make a transaction—specifically to fund my Google Ads account—but unfortunately, the whole thing keeps failing, insisting that my details are incorrect, even though I am looking right at them and they are absolutely spot on. This leaves me wondering, does one typically have to wait a certain amount of time after activation before the card is actually functional for online use, or is it supposed to be instantaneous? Is there perhaps a necessary waiting period of a few hours before the system recognizes it?

It usually takes a full day—honestly, you might even see a notification pop up on your Chase app regarding the delay. 🤔
You should be good to go by tomorrow.

darkhawk said:Go ahead—troll my thread. 😉

My bad 😢
I really should have kept my mouth shut—hormones are a real beast, aren't they? 😢

Anyway, good luck with that request. 👋

boldwalker12 said:Wait, where on earth are you getting the idea that we aren't handing out bans? I honestly don't get why you’d think that, especially since I have a direct line to his moderation logs—specifically the ones regarding this thread.
He isn't getting any special treatment just because he's posting here; we're hitting him with sanctions like clockwork. So, what's the actual issue? Why all the massive drama? What exactly is bothering you guys?

Personally, nothing—I just skip over his posts starting on day two.
What bothers me is your habit of labeling anyone who falls for his bait as a "thread destroyer."
The guy knows how to troll—it's practically an art form for him.
He drops a question so seemingly innocent that it makes it difficult to justify a sanction. But if you actually penalized him every single time he showed up to stir the pot, he’d be a ghost. There are rules against trolling, which means you can punish repeated offenses or issue a direct three-day ban for undermining a discussion. If that happened, he’d likely give up the act.
Or do you genuinely believe he isn't trolling and that people are just being irrational when they snap at him?

boldwalker12 said:Since this whole drama has been dragging on for weeks now, let me weigh in.
To those of you whining about your supposed "freedom of speech" being threatened regarding this specific user: it's not in your interest to keep this thread alive, and you honestly couldn't care less whether the topic remains constructive or if it outgrew Guud a long time ago.
The people who actually give a damn about the topic participate in it, they contribute, and they don't obsess over that one guy.

We don't hand out bans just for lying. Honestly, some of you would have earned a permanent ban long ago otherwise.

So, since your goal isn't actually keeping the discussion going, but rather constantly nagging us because we won't let you mess with this guy, I've come to a conclusion: you guys aren't complaining about moderation, you're just looking for an excuse to troll him. You want to play these boundary-less games like, "wow you're so stupid, oh my god how dumb can you be, you lied on that other thread, you were mocking us, oh man you're such an idiot."
Because heaven forbid a constructive thread on ŽuD stays useful to everyone during a crisis; no, we have to perform these little circus acts just so a few loud, stubborn forum members can have their fun at someone else's expense, because apparently, that's their version of a hobby.

Anyway, that's my two cents on this Guud situation you're all so desperate to push.

Honestly, I didn't intend to get involved here—but after dealing with this much passive-aggression, I feel compelled to respond.
First off, I think your assessment of why users are engaging with this thread is completely off base.
The vast majority aren't trying to wreck the thread; they simply don't understand why someone known for trolling is allowed to periodically swoop back in and derail everything with "naive" questions.
And you know perfectly well that new users stumbling upon this thread will bite the bait every single time—it's happened more than enough times to prove it. And no, it isn't the veterans who see through him who ignore him, but rather those who actually care about the topic. Everyone involved cares—including those who are fed up with Guud and with you moderators for permitting this trolling.

boldwalker12 said:Since this whole drama has been dragging on for weeks now, let me weigh in.
To those of you whining about your supposed "freedom of speech" being threatened regarding this specific user: it's not in your interest to keep this thread alive, and you honestly couldn't care less whether the topic remains constructive or if it outgrew Guud a long time ago.
The people who actually give a damn about the topic participate in it, they contribute, and they don't obsess over that one guy.

We don't hand out bans just for lying. Honestly, some of you would have earned a permanent ban long ago otherwise.

So, since your goal isn't actually keeping the discussion going, but rather constantly nagging us because we won't let you mess with this guy, I've come to a conclusion: you guys aren't complaining about moderation, you're just looking for an excuse to troll him. You want to play these boundary-less games like, "wow you're so stupid, oh my god how dumb can you be, you lied on that other thread, you were mocking us, oh man you're such an idiot."
Because heaven forbid a constructive thread on ŽuD stays useful to everyone during a crisis; no, we have to perform these little circus acts just so a few loud, stubborn forum members can have their fun at someone else's expense, because apparently, that's their version of a hobby.

Anyway, that's my two cents on this Guud situation you're all so desperate to push.

Not for lying, no—but there is a specific card protest for trolling. Use it when it's obvious someone is doing exactly that. 😉

boldwalker12 said:Since this whole drama has been dragging on for weeks now, let me weigh in.
To those of you whining about your supposed "freedom of speech" being threatened regarding this specific user: it's not in your interest to keep this thread alive, and you honestly couldn't care less whether the topic remains constructive or if it outgrew Guud a long time ago.
The people who actually give a damn about the topic participate in it, they contribute, and they don't obsess over that one guy.

We don't hand out bans just for lying. Honestly, some of you would have earned a permanent ban long ago otherwise.

So, since your goal isn't actually keeping the discussion going, but rather constantly nagging us because we won't let you mess with this guy, I've come to a conclusion: you guys aren't complaining about moderation, you're just looking for an excuse to troll him. You want to play these boundary-less games like, "wow you're so stupid, oh my god how dumb can you be, you lied on that other thread, you were mocking us, oh man you're such an idiot."
Because heaven forbid a constructive thread on ŽuD stays useful to everyone during a crisis; no, we have to perform these little circus acts just so a few loud, stubborn forum members can have their fun at someone else's expense, because apparently, that's their version of a hobby.

Anyway, that's my two cents on this Guud situation you're all so desperate to push.

Good grief, the passive-aggression. 🙏 🙏
No one would feel the urge to "mess with" Guud if the mods just shut him down every time he trolls. You are contradicting exactly what Dorian wrote before you: that mods exist to protect the peaceful majority from the "belligerent" minority. Or do you honestly think these ten or so users reacting to Guud constitute a belligerent majority?
True, this thread is excellent. I’ve been following it from day one, and the advice here has been top-tier. Don't let one or two trolls derail the whole thing.
A quick suggestion—don't blame the users who just have thinner skin than I do for ruining the vibe. If the mods started handing out bans for trolling, things would settle down in a heartbeat.

As for those "forum defenders," I’m definitely against them. In my view, creating special access for certain users—like opening up private files that the moderators can't even see—would just split the community into "us" versus "them."
Oh, they exist—plenty of them, actually. They always will. From what I can tell, the admins actually step in to fix mistakes when things go south; they actually read and verify appeals rather than just shutting them down. As for people who "can't express themselves"—sorry, but if someone can't simply write "I am appealing the decision regarding..." without bringing up their pets, their ancestors from twenty generations ago, or their houseplants in various compromising positions (and honestly, it seems like those are the only types of appeals that get ignored anyway), then they shouldn't be on a text-based platform to begin with. 😍

Joshua Gray75 said:I’m bringing this topic back up, but I really need some quick advice here...
The situation is that someone from Microsoft is asking me to co-sign a loan for them—monthly payments would be roughly $667—while my own mortgage payment sits right around $667. My take-home pay is about $1933, and quite frankly, I want to be absolutely certain that I CANNOT act as a guarantor; I have zero intention of getting dragged into a financial mess like this...

I hope I’m reading this correctly and that it's actually impossible for me to qualify as a co-signer, though I realize her bank could easily run a credit check on me if I were to provide my Social Security number (which she already asked for🙄, though I haven't handed anything over yet until I'm positive about my own credit standing...)

Anyone have thoughts?

A different bank shouldn't be able to pull your private data just by having your SSN—I mean, I know the SSNs of several family members 🤷—they need your signed consent to access those records.
Regarding creditworthiness: it's unlikely a bank would accept you as a guarantor based solely on your credit score, but sometimes banks use "declarative" guarantors—meaning they aren't necessarily creditworthy themselves, but they represent another living person who could be held liable, increasing the chances of collection—or perhaps there are multiple guarantors whose combined credit capacity covers the loan.
In short, your lack of credit capacity doesn't automatically guarantee the bank won't decide to include you in the loan agreement anyway. So, my advice: if you don't want to do it, say it clearly and loudly—or make up some excuse about applying for a new car loan that would disqualify you if you co-sign.
Whatever you do, don't sign the loan application as a guarantor or authorize that credit check. 😉

darkhawk said:Where on earth is Anderson—has he vanished? He needs to get back here and repeat that particular commandment of his:

For those folks on the forum who can't get the link to work—and honestly, if you can't be bothered to go looking for it—we'll just paste it here:

Just a quick side note—feel free to carry on as you were. 😍
If this link is meant to be a modding resource—and judging by how you’re quoting Anderson, I suspect it actually is—then we have our answer. 🤔 Honestly—I’d suggest actually reading the forum rules (they're right there at the top of the homepage, if anyone bothers to look)—it might save us all some trouble. .
Take note of the section regarding the removal of items from the fashion forum—it's quite telling. 😍

Orbis keeps bragging about how seamless their service is—as if we haven't all been staring at 503 and 504 errors all morning.😍

Michelle Palmer6 said:I’d love to see a drop-down menu!

Every single one of your ideas is pure gold.🙏 🙏

The teller at Chase won't bite—but the guy over at Fidelity certainly will.😉

So, they took out Kennedy and brought down the WTC??

I mean, look—if Admiral Lošo says it’s true, then it’s practically gospel truth at this point. 🤷 ☕

slywolf45 said:Why?
Try viewing it like, say, Newsbar—then suddenly it’ll be your favorite site.

See, I see 🤔
I just needed the right perspective—that's all.😍

😘

Thanks for the reminder 😍
Forum admins—can we get a daily lockout, similar to what they have for the Chicago residents? 🙂
The site is so serious that I actually get a little knot in my stomach every time I open it—yet, predictably, the crowd keeps spamming it with total nonsense 🙂

Melissa Ortiz8 said:I'm just looking for the bare essentials. if it's actually around $25 a year, then I'm in. I'm definitely not interested if it jumps to $300 or $400 $167 a month—that's way too much for me.

If you have a mortgage on the property, you’ll also need fire insurance—standard stuff. The cost really depends on the square footage and your zip code... personally, for my 450-square-foot condo, the total package including accident coverage comes out to about $60,000 $167 annually. It’s not some astronomical figure, 😉 just standard math.

Standard accident insurance through Allianz—usually something they push at the Bank of America—is roughly $24 a year, if my quick math didn't fail me.
That’s strictly accident coverage, mind you—no savings component involved. Now, if you want actual life insurance, you’re looking at about $67 a month; alternatively, if you find yourself short on credit coverage, you could bridge the gap with that accident policy. Their bottom line is simply ensuring you're covered for that $13,000 mark in the event of an accident.

Options—fix the signature. Just set the size to 😉