I’ve got a quick question, hopefully I'm asking this in the right spot. So, I was reading through one of those accounting journals today:
Generally speaking, an advance payment follows some kind of signed contract, a verbal agreement, or even just a sent quote. You really have to watch out that the quote doesn't look too much like an actual invoice—especially if it lists the base price and the sales tax amount. If it does, the issuer might end up being on the hook for calculating and paying that sales tax immediately. ... ... ...An estimate usually isn't considered an invoice for an advance payment. But, if you issue an estimate that includes all the elements of a formal invoice, the issuer triggers a tax liability regardless of whether the deposit was actually paid or the goods were delivered. Plus, the recipient can't claim any input tax credits from it either."
😕 I was looking over my own quotes and the ones we get from vendors, and honestly, they all list specific line items, prices, and sales tax. They're all generated from software that makes them look identical to a standard invoice. I guess I don't know if anyone actually ends up paying that sales tax because of it.
Man, they really didn't have their act together for this one.😢 I mean, why on earth would it start from number one? These are the books for this current year, for crying out loud. It’s not like they haven't swapped things around in the middle of the year before, and it never starts at one mid-year, so I guess it shouldn't now either.🤷
Nathan Brooks4 said:Well, they're virtually slapping me with insults that are both baseless and false. I know you might be fine with that, but according to the rules, it isn't. Unlike everyone else, I don't hide behind things—I tell them straight up that I've reported them for harassment.
It might be a good idea to stop reporting people just because they have a different opinion, even if it hits a nerve for you. And honestly, announcing it in the thread is kind of unnecessary. What's the goal there? You think someone's gonna change their mind just because you called them out?
Joshua Jones13 said:Look, folks, as much as you all seem to want to drag politics onto Zodiac Killer, it’s just not going to happen. None of us are stepping up to moderate political threads. Politics doesn't belong here on Zodiac Killer.
If you're really dying to have those kinds of debates involving political topics, there's the Politics PDF. I realize people aren't exactly thrilled about it since the rules are way stricter over there, but there's a reason for that.
So, I’m asking nicely: please leave the politics off Zodiac Killer. If you're actually as articulate and skilled at debating as you claim, I'm sure you can find a way to talk about these things without bringing up Marshall or America.
I mean, yeah, I agree we shouldn't be bringing politics onto the Zodiac Killer boards in general. But man, look at what happens when we touch on a topic that's actually important or heated in society. Like, is someone even allowed to answer a claim that homosexuality faced its worst persecution from the church? Because you kind of have to mention certain eras and systems to make sense, but apparently, those are considered "political." Meanwhile, some people can drone on about religion and somehow it's fine. Direct political debates? Sure, no way. But if these topics come up just to explain or clarify something during a discussion—and then people don't just keep pushing it—I guess it shouldn't be such a huge deal to let that explanation stay.
Bradley Sanders4 said:Actually, yeah, it is possible. We haven't lived under a one-party system for twenty years, and frankly, that history isn't nearly as relevant to this topic as, say, ancient Greece or some Islamic states might be. The real issue is that the go-to arguments in these debates usually boil down to "well, things were better under Marshall," which is just a nasty way of implying that gay people are all atheists or nostalgic for the old regime. Once someone pulls that kind of "logic" out of their pocket, of course someone else is going to jump in to call them out.
Stop dragging Marshall and Stalin into this as if they're valid talking points, otherwise, we'll never get any actual political discussion done. Cut the philosophy crap.
It wasn't even about that. It was about people straight-up falsifying history, and I guess there's no way to stop people from reacting to that.
Frank Williams6 said:I haven't really posted on this topic before, but I just had to weigh in.
Exactly. People are overdoing it without any filter at all. When you talk about human rights, that includes the right to faith and human dignity. If there's a right to love whoever you want, which there is, why is the right to believe suddenly less important? Attacking the gay community is called homophobia, but attacking and insulting Catholics is just called being "liberal" and "open-minded." Yeah, right.
This is what greeted me yesterday in a chat I write in:
Totally out of nowhere, people just started losing their minds over something with a Catholic vibe.
In three years of chatting with Bradley Sanders4, Yevgeniya, Bios, etc.—people I totally disagree with—I've never seen such an unhinged, baseless meltdown. Basically, intolerance and hate speech toward believers have been quietly slipped through the back door while everyone was busy focusing on the rights of every other group.
Debates, questions, healthy humor, sarcasm—that's all fine. But this general mania of "let's crucify the Catholics" is just way too much.
So, I'm either for allowing (i) politics or banning the religious bickering entirely, so that users who want those kinds of debates can head over to the appropriate subreddits or threads on politics, religion, and stuff like that.
I'm not a fan of bans.
Yeah, true. The subject is sensitive, and honestly, it's pretty much impossible to avoid mentioning politics at some point. If it's just mentioned within the context of the main topic, I don't see why it should be banned. Otherwise, there's really no topic left to discuss. And maybe if people stopped nitpicking and hitting that report button unless it's actual insults or a serious rule break, things would go smoother.
My bad, I didn't realize I had to send you some formal written notice regarding how the moderators handle things. Besides, mods aren't supposed to—and honestly can't—be totally in sync or perfect all the time. That’s why we have sub-mods and admins, I guess. If you can only feel okay about things when someone here comes crawling by to offer a humble apology for their own opinions, then maybe that's just your issue. What's even the point of your posts on this thread today?
Where am I defending the indefensible? Did I even say my first post wasn't just trolling? Is that settled now? But I’m still sticking to my guns—asking "And did you enjoy it?" is definitely trolling. That's all.
Nicholas King said:Perhaps because she actually did your job for you—effectively calling out a troll on an incredibly sensitive subject?
I’d say you aren't around ZUD that much, .🙂 Actually, it's quite the opposite: most of those troll threads just devolve into this grotesque speculation by forum members about what the initial (entirely fabricated) situation might actually look like, while the troll—after maybe two or three opening posts—wisely retreats from the discussion (and is probably laughing their head off).
I honestly can't remember the last time a troll actually ended up getting banned.
I mean, how does a post like that make someone a troll? Especially on such a sensitive subject.
Edit: Look, Nicholas, if you’ve got an issue with me, just say it. You're starting to trip over your own logic just to try and knock me down for "not doing my job."
Sandra Parker3 said:I mean, I could have, sure, but I guess I’ve just been conditioned to come here and whine. 😁
Right, fair enough, but we did drop names in that thread, so... anyway, it was just an assumption.
Actually, I’d rather ask you if you think this is even fair or useful—and how long the admins plan on letting this slide.
To clarify, people don't bother reporting posts or sending a PM, but they absolutely love coming here to complain or starting some massive thread about how the mods aren't doing their jobs. Why is this being allowed before the person whining even tries to give a moderator a heads-up via a report? Instead of actually moderating, they end up stuck arguing about stuff that shouldn't have happened in the first place.
okay, got it. we did post names on that specific thread though... so... I guess the assumption is...
The assumption is... well, you know. That thread (if you're talking about aggressive Sex) hasn't really existed on Zionist Kitchen for a while now; it was cleaned up from the start, but once things went too far, it just got shut down.
I know this isn't really what we're talking about here, but since these out-of-context, totally outdated posts are still sitting here, I figured I might as well weigh in on them.
Sandra Gonzalez3 said:So now that everything's been double-checked and we know what's actually true... are they gonna strip that user of those 35 points he got right off the bat for asking "Was that fun for you?"... seriously...
Why? You think her post is suddenly perfectly fine now?
So why keep bringing it up if it’s off-topic then?
Regarding the moderation stuff, I don't really mind admitting when I messed up and asking for a fix—something everyone could clearly see anyway. I honestly don't have much else to say about it, other than my reaction at the time was just based on how things looked, which is exactly what Joshua Jones13 explained. I guess there isn't much more to add to her reasoning. The thread was asking for more feedback, but you know, you can't always react to everything instantly with 100% certainty. A little report or a PM and some patience goes a long way. But I suppose it's just easier to open a whole new thread on the UN first. Fine. 🤷
Look, setting aside the fact that nobody actually reported this and the mods haven't even bothered to explain what they're announcing, why do you keep bringing up my ban from the Reddit thread? Do you even know how the subreddit rules work, or are you just looking for an excuse to take a little dig at me every single time my name pops up on the UN forums??
Look, maybe if you'd just 🤦 slow down and actually read what's being said, that "background" stuff wouldn't keep bothering you so much. This was originally about the context regarding bluecyclist64 and the observer, not you and whatever rant you're on here, Lord—which I guess is what esqela mentioned earlier, but you won't even try to jump in and defend the situation since you clearly don't get it. It kind of calls your own take on the background into question, too. But hey, just so we're clear, it's a pretty simple concept.😁
Honestly, a ton of stuff in this thread could probably be written off as straight-up trolling, including some of her posts. Since the topic was opened right where it was—which I’ve already gone over—and we really don't need to crank up the tension any further, the thread is being locked. Everyone's been asked to move the conversation over to NATO instead.
What does deleting posts on this thread have anything to do with that whole mess over at the Grand Canyon? You’re trolling hard, honestly. Not to mention, I don't even think anything actually got deleted here. Yeah, it's not even about being offensive in a literal sense. It's more about what people consider "offensive" based on certain social norms, and then the mods or admins decide, "Yep, that counts." Having an opinion or just being provocative isn't the same thing as being abusive.
Just find the posts where someone’s calling you an idiot and being a total jerk, and I bet they won't even get flagged. I mean, that’s not just having an opinion—that’s straight-up verbal abuse. And frozenowl3, look, if you feel insulted, that doesn't make it an insult. If someone's opinion gets under your skin or baits you into snapping back, that's on you. Just get that. I don't really feel like dragging this out any further since I think we all get the point.🙂
Since you’re the one who opened this thread on the Chicken Coop for her, I guess the Chicken Coop rules apply here. That means no off-topic nonsense or pointless debates, and we don't split things into separate threads just for random venting. Since this basically turned into a dedicated PŽK discussion anyway, it’s been locked. And look, whether something is actually offensive or not... maybe just let the moderators decide that. Not every opinion you hate is an insult.