Posts by Ashley Bishop4

Nicholas King said:It seems like you don't quite grasp what the word "explicit" actually implies, or is that the issue?

🙂 clearly didn't read the very first post in this thread 😂 😂 😂

My bad! Here is a quick snippet from that original post:

3. No soliciting or requesting sex, no trolling (we need to keep things civil), and please don't comment on the Advertisements within this thread. If an Advertisement catches your eye, just send that person a private message.

So, it doesn't actually say "explicitly" anywhere. I was just testing to see how much you guys actually knew about the rules you were criticizing.😳

Jack Ward82 said:@Ashley Bishop4
If I follow your logic—that only Lonely Hearts are allowed to post on the US Forum—then I guess that means only people obsessed with romance or sex are allowed to post on LJES!?
PS: In my humble opinion, the moderators here are fighting a losing battle; they’re just digging themselves into a deeper hole with every move they make.
That Advertisement was deleted unfairly. There were already more than enough arguments provided for anyone actually paying attention.

Is it LJES or just plain old "Loves"?

So, how exactly did you jump to the conclusion that because Lonely Hearts post Advertisements on the US Forum, then everyone posting on the LJES Forum must be someone who just lives for LJES?
That makes zero sense. 🤷

Jack Ward82 said:@Ashley Bishop4
If I follow your logic—that only Lonely Hearts are allowed to post on the US Forum—then I guess that means only people obsessed with romance or sex are allowed to post on LJES!?
PS: In my humble opinion, the moderators here are fighting a losing battle; they’re just digging themselves into a deeper hole with every move they make.
That Advertisement was deleted unfairly. There were already more than enough arguments provided for anyone actually paying attention.

Oh, please. 😁
It’s pretty obvious you didn't even bother reading the very first post in this thread. It clearly states there was no explicit solicitation for sex and absolutely no trolling going on. 👍

Nicholas King said:The sheer depth of your misunderstanding regarding my questions is actually quite impressive.

I am not the one who claimed that physical contact is identical to sex. For those viewers who joined our broadcast later on, here is a brief chronology of events:

- A girl posted an Advertisement stating she was looking for physical contact without a relationship;
- Nicole Ruiz posted an Advertisement where he and his partner were looking for a "woman/girl who would hang out with us. Age doesn't matter! The important thing is that she also cares about her appearance, is relaxed, and is eager for hanging out, partying, and playing games together..."
- The first ad was declared absolutely indisputable based on the moderator's words, "I'm ready to apologize if I was wrong";
- The second ad was deleted;
- After all the drama was kicked up, the first ad was also deleted (that "I'll apologize if I was wrong" bit turned out to be nothing but hot air)

So, I am not questioning whether physical contact is the same as sex; rather, I find it unclear what the criteria are by which seeking physical contact isn't considered seeking sex, yet seeking a "girl to hang out with" is—and more importantly, I don't get how someone's request for physical contact suddenly becomes "seeking sex" and gets deleted after several days of it being fine.

Your second question is equally submerged in a total failure to grasp what was read. Aside from the fact that you are operating under the assumption that you know exactly how the couple in the disputed ad is undeniably seeking sex (just as you know that the girl seeking physical contact outside of a relationship actually just wants casual hand-holding), you are overlooking the fact that I am viewing the deletion of the disputed ad within the context of why other ads weren't deleted—in other words, my question isn't "why is this seeking sex and why isn't it a Lonely Hearts ad?", but rather "why is this seeking sex and not a Lonely Hearts ad, while an ad from a married man looking for a woman without prejudice isn't seeking sex and is a Lonely Hearts ad?".

But, even if you start trying to explain to me how it's okay for a married man to be lonely, but a couple in a relationship isn't allowed to be lonely, the question of all questions remains: since when was a rule introduced on the Lonely Hearts section where only Lonely Hearts are allowed to post on any topic (and Advertisements are—I know, I'll shock you—just a very ordinary, standard topic)? Everything written in the introductory post of that section says "It is still open (topic, per LB) just because there are those who truly want to meet someone and they are allowed to do so here".

Here is a detailed explanation of how and why you haven't understood a single thing about my questions, along with detailed answers to yours—without the sarcasm or the evasive little jokes.

Only, I have no idea where you got the notion that I would want to continue this conversation with you at all? 😕

It wasn't even you saying that—Nicole Ruiz was the one who made the claim. You're just jumping all over the place trying to back her up... honestly, it's a bit much!

Nicholas King said:The sheer depth of your misunderstanding regarding my questions is actually quite impressive.

I am not the one who claimed that physical contact is identical to sex. For those viewers who joined our broadcast later on, here is a brief chronology of events:

- A girl posted an Advertisement stating she was looking for physical contact without a relationship;
- Nicole Ruiz posted an Advertisement where he and his partner were looking for a "woman/girl who would hang out with us. Age doesn't matter! The important thing is that she also cares about her appearance, is relaxed, and is eager for hanging out, partying, and playing games together..."
- The first ad was declared absolutely indisputable based on the moderator's words, "I'm ready to apologize if I was wrong";
- The second ad was deleted;
- After all the drama was kicked up, the first ad was also deleted (that "I'll apologize if I was wrong" bit turned out to be nothing but hot air)

So, I am not questioning whether physical contact is the same as sex; rather, I find it unclear what the criteria are by which seeking physical contact isn't considered seeking sex, yet seeking a "girl to hang out with" is—and more importantly, I don't get how someone's request for physical contact suddenly becomes "seeking sex" and gets deleted after several days of it being fine.

Your second question is equally submerged in a total failure to grasp what was read. Aside from the fact that you are operating under the assumption that you know exactly how the couple in the disputed ad is undeniably seeking sex (just as you know that the girl seeking physical contact outside of a relationship actually just wants casual hand-holding), you are overlooking the fact that I am viewing the deletion of the disputed ad within the context of why other ads weren't deleted—in other words, my question isn't "why is this seeking sex and why isn't it a Lonely Hearts ad?", but rather "why is this seeking sex and not a Lonely Hearts ad, while an ad from a married man looking for a woman without prejudice isn't seeking sex and is a Lonely Hearts ad?".

But, even if you start trying to explain to me how it's okay for a married man to be lonely, but a couple in a relationship isn't allowed to be lonely, the question of all questions remains: since when was a rule introduced on the Lonely Hearts section where only Lonely Hearts are allowed to post on any topic (and Advertisements are—I know, I'll shock you—just a very ordinary, standard topic)? Everything written in the introductory post of that section says "It is still open (topic, per LB) just because there are those who truly want to meet someone and they are allowed to do so here".

Here is a detailed explanation of how and why you haven't understood a single thing about my questions, along with detailed answers to yours—without the sarcasm or the evasive little jokes.

Only, I have no idea where you got the notion that I would want to continue this conversation with you at all? 😕

It’s not that you should be questioning it—it’s just that you haven't quite wrapped your head around it yet. 🤦

Look, you didn't actually answer my questions—and I asked for them to be brief and to the point. You still haven't explained why you consider physical contact to be sex, or how a threesome setup even fits into the logic of US Advertisements.
Instead, you're just circling around, stuttering, and hiding behind everyone else's opinions and impressions.

And supposedly, they’re all just out there searching for some kind of freedom and justice.

Look, if you don't want to talk to me because you aren't interested in anything I have to say, then fine—have it your way. Consider this your freedom and your right to walk away. 🙂I’m going to throw another riddle your way. This one is a bit easier, though I’m still holding out a little hope that you might actually wrap your head around it this time! So, we've got two different scenarios here:

So, she’s looking for some physical touch. Honestly? It's pretty straightforward when you look at it that way.
So, this guy's out here looking for a threesome.

Look, I’ll make this easy for you—I’m just going to lay it out exactly as it is. 😵So, looking at your black-and-white chess Swiss system—how do you think these two situations stack up?

Either way, they both just mean someone's looking for sex.
Look, let’s get one thing straight: saying "either this or nothing" doesn't automatically mean someone is hunting for sex. It's just not that simple.

So, looking at it again—if that first point is actually right, then neither of these Advertisements even qualify as US under the rules.
If that second point is actually true, then I won’t disqualify them based on that specific rule. But if we’re going by the other rule—the one involving the actual logic of the US Forum—then I’m out. I’m disqualifying that second option because it just doesn't make sense. You can't have a "Lonely Heart" when there are two hearts involved. One isn't two, you know? Surely you can agree with me on that! 🤷

At the end of the day, I might say—maybe if I were feeling a bit cynical—that you weren't actually fighting to get that girl's Advertisement reinstated. Looking at how you've written everything, it’s pretty clear that you don't actually care that the post was deleted.

Wait, so you don't actually care about people having their advertisements removed? It seems like you aren't even concerned about the ads themselves—you're just obsessed with pointing out how unfair the moderators are. And does it really not bother you if an entire thread, one that’s actually helpful to a ton of people, gets completely ruined because of this? You just don't care at all, do you?

Nicole Ruiz said:Completely irrelevant. 🤷

Well, if it's so irrelevant, why don't you just put your Advertisement right here?

Or maybe over here:

Actually, this spot might be your best bet since the audience there is mostly women.

Honestly, just post it in all three places. I mean, whatever, an Advertisement is an Advertisement, right? 🙂

Nicholas King said:Rather than resorting to arrogance or these weak attempts at being witty, it would be far more productive—and frankly, more interesting—to hear actual answers to specific questions:

- The moderator explicitly stated right here that there was absolutely nothing objectionable about an Advertisement where a woman is quite literally seeking physical contact. Yet, following this entire ordeal, even that post was removed. Did the moderator change her mind after the fact, or did she simply lose track of her own logic, or perhaps something else entirely?

- What is the tangible difference between that "problematic" post and the one where a married man is looking for "a woman who understands him"—an ad that has been sitting on the Classifieds for days now? Does the moderation team honestly believe a married man doesn't have options—or, more importantly, do they think a married man isn't looking for sex?

Any attempt at a similarly witty response—like the quote above, or some timely sarcasm aimed at the same two tired jokes—will serve as nothing more than a sign of total confusion and utter helplessness.

If you're really that curious, it’s "something else."

Where exactly in a request for physical contact did you read that they were asking for sex? How on earth did you interpret "physical contact" as being synonymous with sex? If that's how you personally view it, fine... but for most people, physical contact isn't sex.

Also, where in Nicole Ruiz's Advertisement did you see anything about it being for Lonely Hearts? How did you conclude that a couple—a man and a woman—looking for a woman for companionship falls under the category of the Lonely Hearts PDF?

Once you answer these two questions—and please, no sarcasm and no using those same two tired excuses you always use. Just give me a direct answer, just as concise as my questions:

1) How is physical contact the same thing as sex?
2) How does an advertisement where a couple is looking for a woman for sex fall under Lonely Hearts?

Only then can we continue this conversation. Otherwise, I'm going to assume you posted this comment while being completely lost and scattered.

So, it's definitely "something else." 🙂

Nicole Ruiz said:I’m honestly quite pleased that you’re also attempting to point out some of these logical inconsistencies—truly, I am! It's refreshing to see someone else noticing the cracks in the foundation. But, as you can clearly see from the current situation, there doesn't seem to be any massive payoff for doing so... It's all a bit futile, isn't it? Much like trying to fix a leaky faucet in an old house while the landlord is busy staring at the clouds instead of grabbing a wrench! Anyway, just my two cents!
I laid it all out for them—really hammered home all those contradictions, the blatant inequalities, and just how inconsistent the whole thing is... much like you did! Honestly, I’m kicking myself for not realizing that once they shut down my thread, the entire debate just migrated right over to the admin questions section.
But honestly, what really ought to be weighing on all of us here is the way the moderators handled this entire situation. I mean, really! I’ve always considered myself to have quite a developed knack for argumentation—I can hold my own in just about any debate, you know? It's a skill I pride myself on. When I was actually sitting down with them... Proven! It’s honestly ridiculous—they kept locking my threads just because people were making mistakes! And get this: when the conversation started drifting toward that exact issue on a different thread, the mods stepped in and shut the whole thing down immediately. It happened right as you, Nicholas King, started getting aggressive with your points. I think they realized pretty quickly that you can actually make their lives a living hell if you start dismantling their logic with those sharp arguments of yours!🙂 )
So, after I finally backed rustydrifter10 into a corner and demanded a straight "yes" or "no" answer... suddenly, everyone just decides to look the other way? This whole thread is being completely ignored! Seriously!
And then—get this—on top of everything else, they actually go ahead and scrub the Advertisements we used to build our entire case! It’s just unbelievable. They were defending those exact same posts like they were gospel, acting like there wasn't a single question about how legitimate they were... and then, poof, gone! Just wiped clean.
It’s exactly like you said! Honestly, they could have just been upfront about it. They could have just looked us in the eye and said, "Look, we completely screwed the pooch on this one." That doesn't mean the criteria are magically going to change overnight, but at least there would be some accountability! They should have just owned the mistake, made their call on how things are going to work moving forward, and then stuck to it. Just total transparency—that's all anyone really asks for!
There were inconsistencies everywhere, just total illogicality, and honestly? It felt like pure discrimination.

Listen, let me be perfectly clear about this—the moderators over at the US subforum are absolutely adamant that they won't have their Advertisements turned into some kind of tawdry little sex-classifieds section! It’s just not happening!
Look, if you really think about it... the drive for sex is just one of those fundamental survival instincts! It’s right up there on the same level as the basic necessity to grab a bite to eat, stay hydrated, or simply take a breath of air into your lungs! It's all part of the biological programming, isn't it? Just pure, raw instinct!
Having advertisements on this forum while completely stripping away any sexual component is... well... it’s kind of like opening up this gorgeous, perfectly curated lounge where every single alcoholic drink you could possibly dream of is sitting there for free, but then strictly forbidding anyone from actually taking a sip! It just doesn't make sense, does it?

And here’s a little song dedicated to all those colorful nicknames out there! I just stumbled upon this video—honestly, my mind is completely blown! I was sitting here with my morning coffee, just scrolling through, when this popped up on my feed. It’s one of those things that makes you stop dead in your tracks and just... stare. You know that feeling? Like the world suddenly shifts an inch to the left? Anyway, I had to share it. There is something about the way this is presented that feels so incredibly profound, yet so simple at the same time. It actually reminded me of a conversation I had last summer while I was driving through the Rockies—just me, some old jazz on the radio, and this overwhelming sense of scale. Life is just so much bigger than our daily grind, isn't it? We get so caught up in the emails and the errands, but then you see something like this and realize we're all just tiny specks in this massive, beautiful universe. I mean, seriously, give it a watch. It really is something special. I'll be thinking about this one for a long, long time. Just... wow. Truly.

Honestly, I really think you all just completely blew it this time—total amateurs, if you ask me!☕

Spot on, nothing more to say.🙂

Your Advertisement wasn't taken down because of "discrimination." It was removed because the format, the content, and the overall tone just didn't meet the criteria established in the very first post of this thread.

When you filed your complaint about the removal, all you did was vent—asking why they deleted yours but didn't delete his, even though he’s breaking the rules too.🙂

So, after feeling like you were treated unfairly, your way of fixing it is to demand that everyone else gets treated unfairly, too.🤷

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the moderators.😳

But as a regular on the US Forum, I think they actually made the right call here. 👍

Standing up for Grace Kim80 👍 She was absolutely within her rights to pull that ad, based purely on the facts:

1) The thread explicitly says to check the first post before posting.
2) That very first post clearly states there’s zero tolerance for trolling.

At the end of the day, a moderator is the one qualified to judge what counts as trolling.
Look, moderators can be whatever you want them to be, but they're definitely a smaller headache than people who think they're above the rules and just ignore everything written right in front of them. 🙂

Also, saying "I don't like bearded guys" or "I don't like people without energy" is a clear preference—it's fine if it suits you or not. But claiming "I don't like princesses" is nothing but a provocation. The moderator decided that provocations aren't allowed in the Classifieds section, which is exactly why there’s such a detailed intro post at the top of the thread. 👍

Let's get serious for a second and stop messing with the moderators when there isn't even a good reason to do so. 🤷

Here’s a quick rundown of my recent run-in with the moderator Mr. Smoogj (I’m copying this post just in case he decides to scrub it from this thread
.


What he was doing is textbook historical revisionism—basically trying to downplay responsibility for the atrocities committed during WWII. It’s a classic playbook for people like him: first, they try to minimize or relativize the actual history (claiming the existence of Auschwitz isn't such a big deal on its own), then they pivot to attacking witnesses personally—questioning who Branko Lustig is and what right he has to teach our kids—all while insulting me by suggesting I simply don't grasp "democracy" or lack the "analytical depth" to understand his genius. 😂 ...to top it all off, he swapped out his insults for mine and slapped me with a ban for allegedly violating forum rules.

I’m just looking for some clarity from the administration here. Is Mr. Smoogj—the same guy who thinks Auschwitz-Birkenau isn't actually that catastrophic and that it should just be "understood within a historical context"🙂

—really someone whose moderation we should respect given how he handles these topics?

Thanks. 🙂

The movie is an absolute blast! 🤣
Since modern Hollywood guidelines basically ban characters from smoking for more than five minutes without asking everyone else if they have a light, 😁

it’s just overflowing with clever nods and homages to the horror genre. 👍

There are at least three standout moments in this thing:

SO, IF YOU ARE HEADING TO THE MOVIES SOON AND WANT TO AVOID SPOILERS, PLEASE SKIP THE REST OF THIS POST:



1. That scene where Alice lights up the sky and incinerates that whole squadron of zombie crows.

2. The part where Oliver is casually smoking a joint in a tank full of dynamite while zombies are literally twitching all over him.

3. When we finally get a look at Alice's clones.

...plus a whole lot more, but I'll let you discover those for yourselves! 🙂

I honestly cannot recommend this movie to anyone. It’s a total pass, especially since the title makes this completely unearned and unfair comparison to the legendary Carpenter masterpiece

So much was changed or totally reshaped from what it should have been. We're talking everything from the lead character's personality to the core motivation—where the attackers were a complete mystery in the original version. And don't even get me started on the massive amount of plot holes and mistakes...

At the end of the day, I’m left wondering why this movie even exists. Even the action sequences aren't anything special; they just hover at a pretty pathetic average. Some critics are trying to claim the film is actually a commentary on current American politics, which honestly feels like a really bizarre way to judge a movie. 😕

The only scene worth mentioning is the opening, mainly because of those local vibes.
👋

I totally get where you're coming from—I went through the exact same thing myself.

Honestly, I think the only way to stay ahead of the curve is to binge movies before the local papers start reviewing them and they even hit the big theaters.

Basically, you just need high-speed fiber internet.😉

It’s definitely worth it for those massive summer blockbusters. For all the other indie flicks where maybe twelve people show up to the screening, you won't have any issues.👍>

I caught The Royal Tenenbaums yesterday.

Just wanted to start a thread about it.

Maybe someone else wants to jump in with some thoughts or point out some cool Easter eggs?

Here’s my first take: the soundtrack for this movie is absolutely killer.👍