680 posts shown.
Daniel Ward87 said:P.S. Michelle Alvarez8 and casualharbor3, this isn't some official government PDF.
casualharbor3 said:I couldn't agree more—👍 bluecyclist64 is basically trying to bring thought crime back to this forum. He’d want to punish anyone who dares to think differently,
@bluecyclist64/">@@bluecyclist64 those days are long gone. It's not happening again.
casualharbor3 said:The US hasn't taken anything from anyone.
casualharbor3 said:Israel is just defending its land.
casualharbor3 said:By the way, they aren't the issue—it's those fascist communist regimes.☕
casualharbor3 said:What part isn't clicking for you?
bluecyclist64 said:But, setting that aside for a moment—I really think we should start labeling problematic posts to show they aren't welcome here. Wouldn't that be a better way to guide the younger users? You know, by actually showing them through example what kind of behavior just doesn't fly on this forum.
Thomas Martinez9 said:I know—that’s why I made sure to mention it *still* says that, just check the bold text.
Zachary Mendoza2 said:If we just handed out bans and permanent bans at will, moderation would lose its entire point. The whole idea behind a permaban is to shield the community from toxic users. But look—a user isn't just some handle or a collection of logins; they're an actual person with a face, a beard, and certain behaviors—whether those behaviors are helpful or totally unhingerred.
loneraven25 said:Look, her private information isn't out there for the world to see, and honestly, does anyone else on these forums even care?
So, we’ve finally started talking about that initiative to bump up the allowed image resolution within the ZIP code, haven't we? Honestly, it feels like it's about time. Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like we're constantly hitting this invisible ceiling that keeps us from actually utilizing the hardware we've paid so much for? It’s frustrating, really—you have all this processing power sitting there, just waiting to be used, yet we're stuck squinting at pixels because some arbitrary limit is holding us back. Why should we be restricted by these outdated standards when the technology has clearly moved past them? I mean, if we can handle higher fidelity in almost every other aspect of our digital lives, why is this specific area still lagging behind? It seems like a massive oversight, doesn't it?
And let’s not even get started on the sheer lack of basic computer literacy we're seeing in the public section of this forum lately. Honestly, does anyone else feel like they're constantly explaining the same fundamental concepts to people who seem to have never even seen a keyboard before? It’s getting a bit ridiculous, isn't it?
Basically, the scope of this forum hasn't kept up with how wide our monitors have gotten.
Matthew Fox4 said:😕Look, I’m not giving anyone advice here, especially not you.
So don't quote me then.Reading comprehension? Zero points there.
My little gray cells send their regards from vacation 👋Basically, you wrote a ton of inaccuracies and you're peddling them as facts.
That kind of blanket statement could have been slapped under anyone's post on any subreddit.
In the future, try using actual arguments instead of attacking people personally—because, to quote you, that "really isn't cool."
I have a 19'' monitor. Should I tell it to stop acting like a 15'' brat and start behaving like a big, smart screen? 🙂
800*600 definitely messes with the page layout. I'll leave it to chance that maybe, through some weird glitch, it only does that on my monitor. Anyway, like I mentioned in my last post, it's up to the admins to decide on photo sizes.
I've said my piece on this thread and I don't plan on dragging this out further, since apparently I'm not just failing at reading comprehension, but I'm also failing at looking at things correctly—it's like I can't even process what's right in front of me on the screen.😵 😵 😁
Matthew Fox4 said:😕Look, I’m not giving anyone advice here, especially not you.
So don't quote me then.Reading comprehension? Zero points there.
My little gray cells send their regards from vacation 👋Basically, you wrote a ton of inaccuracies and you're peddling them as facts.
That kind of blanket statement could have been slapped under anyone's post on any subreddit.
In the future, try using actual arguments instead of attacking people personally—because, to quote you, that "really isn't cool."
I have a 19'' monitor. Should I tell it to stop acting like a 15'' brat and start behaving like a big, smart screen? 🙂
800*600 definitely messes with the page layout. I'll leave it to chance that maybe, through some weird glitch, it only does that on my monitor. Anyway, like I mentioned in my last post, it's up to the admins to decide on photo sizes.
I've said my piece on this thread and I don't plan on dragging this out further, since apparently I'm not just failing at reading comprehension, but I'm also failing at looking at things correctly—it's like I can't even process what's right in front of me on the screen.😵 😵 😁
Matthew Fox4 said:😕Look, I’m not giving anyone advice here, especially not you.
So don't quote me then.Reading comprehension? Zero points there.
My little gray cells send their regards from vacation 👋Basically, you wrote a ton of inaccuracies and you're peddling them as facts.
That kind of blanket statement could have been slapped under anyone's post on any subreddit.
In the future, try using actual arguments instead of attacking people personally—because, to quote you, that "really isn't cool."
I have a 19'' monitor. Should I tell it to stop acting like a 15'' brat and start behaving like a big, smart screen? 🙂
800*600 definitely messes with the page layout. I'll leave it to chance that maybe, through some weird glitch, it only does that on my monitor. Anyway, like I mentioned in my last post, it's up to the admins to decide on photo sizes.
I've said my piece on this thread and I don't plan on dragging this out further, since apparently I'm not just failing at reading comprehension, but I'm also failing at looking at things correctly—it's like I can't even process what's right in front of me on the screen.😵 😵 😁
Matthew Fox4 said:I’m really not feeling the whole idea of bumping up photo sizes past the usual 640*480 pixels (though I won't count those contest shots people mentioned earlier).
The thing is, the width of this forum hasn't actually grown alongside our modern monitors. So, what happens? If someone posts an 800-pixel wide image, it starts pushing against the text area, totally ignoring the column where everyone's nickname and avatar sit. And don't even get me started on when someone quotes a photo—the posts just go all wonky 😁, you know? They become these weirdly stepped, stretched-out messes that make everything impossible to read.
As a potential fix, maybe we could look at increasing the height from 480 to 640 pixels instead, while keeping that 640-pixel width exactly where it is.
Once the site administrators decide to expand the overall layout dimensions, then we can finally start talking about bigger pictures.
Besides, there's still always a link option for anyone who wants to share a high-res version anyway.
Matthew Fox4 said:I’m really not feeling the whole idea of bumping up photo sizes past the usual 640*480 pixels (though I won't count those contest shots people mentioned earlier).
The thing is, the width of this forum hasn't actually grown alongside our modern monitors. So, what happens? If someone posts an 800-pixel wide image, it starts pushing against the text area, totally ignoring the column where everyone's nickname and avatar sit. And don't even get me started on when someone quotes a photo—the posts just go all wonky 😁, you know? They become these weirdly stepped, stretched-out messes that make everything impossible to read.
As a potential fix, maybe we could look at increasing the height from 480 to 640 pixels instead, while keeping that 640-pixel width exactly where it is.
Once the site administrators decide to expand the overall layout dimensions, then we can finally start talking about bigger pictures.
Besides, there's still always a link option for anyone who wants to share a high-res version anyway.
Susan Price30 said:Or you could just debunk them with actual arguments, if anyone even has the time or the will.
Is it better to just feed someone 500 points at a time because they’ve already decided you're a "troll"? If you truly believe someone is just trolling, why even bother wasting your energy on the debate? Or are you just looking for moderator protection to shield your own bizarre reactions to them? I'm not saying the user is actually a troll—I'm saying the thread starter claims they are, and they seem pretty convinced of it.
Please. I haven't seen this one before, but...
loneraven25 said:We aren't. 😁
At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter—none of that stuff actually carries any consequences.
I mean, I can see how someone might find a smashed monitor just taking up way too much space and being a total eyesore, but honestly? Who actually cares about that kind of clutter?
I mean, honestly, would anyone even care if they had to spend an extra millisecond scrolling down a page? It’s hardly like we’re performing open-heart surgery here, right? 😁
No matter how you slice it, it’s just plain wrong.