Posts by bluecyclist64

Look, I’m putting Jack forward for this. If he isn't interested, then you have my name. It’s certainly not an ideal situation, but if there truly is no other way to save the DNC, and if Jack declines, I am willing to sacrifice my own time—at least for the time being.

Sam Green73 said:Who exactly?

If you don't mind my chiming in...

EDIT: I just sent you an email.

Bradley Barnes90 said:If we could actually find someone like that, we’d jump at the chance to have them help us. But the reality is, you can't find anyone who is both an expert and easy to get along with, while also having the unanimous support of every single administrator and moderator. That last part is absolutely non-negotiable.

Comparing this situation to the hard sciences is completely illogical. On a site like CNN, you can debate these same topics endlessly without ever reaching a conclusion; most things simply don't have one definitive, final answer.

I’ll say it again: you are never going to make everyone happy. Either the moderation is too heavy-handed or it's far too lax. Someone will always find a reason to complain. In my experience, it has always been this way.

The thing is, there actually is such a candidate—someone highly qualified, professional, and perfectly level-headed—but for some reason, the team refuses to even bring them on for a trial period. They have solid backing, too, yet it feels like there’s some mysterious, unwritten veto power buried somewhere in the rulebook preventing it from happening.

Eric Newman75 said:I don't have an issue with lighter moderation—not at all. What bothers me is this populist approach being applied to a linguistics subforum. Over on Reddit, people can essentially write whatever nonsense they want without providing any actual arguments. Or knowledge, obviously.

A subforum shouldn't be elitist; I stated clearly before that you don't need a PhD in Philosophy to participate in a discussion about language. However, by being too hands-off, the new cohort is simply breeding trolls rather than fostering quality conversationalists.

Colbert used to penalize people just for being provocative for the sake of provocation. I'm not sure why you aren't doing the same. At the end of the day, this is Reddit, not Craigslist or Starbucks.

I am in complete agreement with my colleague here.
Just look at how the science forums handle things. There, pseudo-scientists get shut down immediately.

In my view, CNN should be moderated by someone who actually cares about the social sciences and their role in society—someone who spends more time on the forum and stays better informed about the nuances of individual posts.
Essentially, we need someone more specialized and conscientious who could serve as assistants to the two of you.

Let’s be honest: CNN has become a total mess, a place where long-time regulars are becoming increasingly reluctant to even step foot.
It also deeply irritates me when some arrogant kid with a vocabulary of a few thousand words tries to lecture me about American linguistic roots because he's never heard of a specific local term. It bothers me even more that such behavior isn't met with a ban.

Why not just admit to yourselves that you need help from someone more expert and capable? You could have had that assistance quite some time ago. So, what's the hold-up?

Amanda Hughes37 said:Nothing right now—just curious how the process actually works in practice.

I have a few links saved, though I’m honestly not sure if I should be posting them here. To be fair, I’m not even sure it would be particularly wise to do so.
I did flag some hate speech to the site administrators a while back, making it clear that if they didn't take action, I'd be taking the matter to the authorities.
They ended up penalizing him, and as far as I'm concerned, it was the right call.
It wasn't my intention to threaten anyone or resort to blackmail—it’s simply that I have zero tolerance for hate speech.
And frankly, I don't believe that reporting hate speech should be viewed as some pathetic act of snitching.
I have personally lived through the reality of fascism—for those of you who haven't had to experience it firsthand, let me tell you, it isn't something to be trifled with.

Arthur Flores2 said:And even in court, I'd prove I'm right. The smoking gun would just be that ridiculous post where you accused me...

It’s easy to slander people with actual names and faces when you're hiding behind an anonymous screen. I’d love to see you actually stand by your "opinion" using your real name for once.

That goes both ways, I guess. Including your slander against me, claiming I stated something as a 100% fact when I didn't...

Honestly, before I even consider those people who claim they represent America, I’d want to see them show up without a police escort. If they need the cops to protect them, then the whole thing just smells fishy from the start...

And why on earth would you want to see them without police protection? Are you worried some bald neo-fascists might jump them? Is there any other reason behind that desire of yours?

Based on how you described it, it sounds like we're talking about a tiny handful of protesters, right? So why would anyone pay such a small group? If someone wanted to stage a real demonstration, wouldn't they just pay a massive crowd instead?
And who is this supposed benefactor? If it were the usual Illuminati suspects, they would have gathered a crowd ten times that size.

Besides, where did you even get the idea that these protesters were claiming to speak for America? That seems like a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

I didn't actually comment on the moderators, if that’s what you’re implying, but it doesn't really matter; I have no interest in splitting hairs over something so trivial.

That said, if the post in question is sitting just two entries down from here—which it is—then I suppose I'll concede the point.

And could someone please enlighten me as to which specific rule I supposedly violated with my post?

So, over on the Women's Corner, this was posted:

JPK said:That’s probably the only area besides food and drink where the French have an edge over the Englishman—they weren't afraid to take heads off when necessary.
And this Powerlock guy is honestly a joke; I picture him as some incredibly pompous jerk who keeps himself so wound up he practically farts in ultrasonic frequencies.

And then they hand out a warning for breaking the rules, just like they did to me when I wrote this:

bluecyclist64 said:The guy is actually a moderator, waving warnings around if anyone dares characterize Britons as primitives.
It's a disaster.
For the nth time: bring back my friend Tito...

Everything would be fine if a certain Dow Chemical, who also happens to be a moderator, hadn't written this:

Dow Chemical said:Oh, looks like someone just discovered Powerlock 😍

and they're also incredibly pretentious; imagine a situation where a moderator on a US forum demands we don't insult the sovereignty of another nation 🤣 🤣 🤣 just because it's so important to the Britons.🤣

Just imagine if someone once had the idea to censor every insult directed at George W. Bush 😬 or maybe Kim Jong Il.

Luckily, the guy is only a moderator on a sub-forum that nobody visits anyway.😬

Interestingly enough, Dow Chemical didn't get a warning. I have nothing against her personally—I don't recall us ever having a disagreement—but I don't understand why everyone plays this game of supposed integrity when it's common knowledge that moderators almost never receive warnings.
Why not just be honest and say you don't want to do it because you're all looking out for one another, and it would be a nightmare to ban moderators—because then who would actually do the work?

And one more thing: it wasn't just Powerlock interpreting his moderator powers in his own unique way; this post from moderator velvettrucker52 appeared on the same thread:

velvettrucker52 said:This marks the second time I’ve had to issue a warning regarding users commenting on moderators and the moderation team in threads where that simply doesn't belong.
I won't be issuing a third warning; you all have been around this forum long enough to know better than to act this way.
There is the PZK section for those discussions, where you can vent to your heart's content.
As for the Women's Corner, I have no intention of wasting my breath on further warnings, nor will I bother handing out penalty points. Instead, I'll just hit you with a three-day cooling-off period.
Thanks for listening. 🙂

So, here it is: the individual in question intends to punish a thirty-point infraction with a three-day ban.

What is the administration's stance on this kind of moderator conduct? Do you honestly think, you forum power-trippers and agitators 😍, that this is acceptable?

I am offering this advice in good faith; lately, there has been an uptick in complaints regarding how moderators interact with the community. It is far easier to address these friction points while they are minor before they escalate into something larger. Of course, that assumes you actually want to resolve them rather than just brushing them off dismissively.

To wrap this up: perhaps a Briton might find this style of forum management tolerable, but I suspect Americans have had quite enough of various forms of self-appointed aristocracy by now.

crimsonsailor7 said:feralranger, hey, just take a breather, okay... I'm gonna get this thread started, I'm just waiting on Brian Edwards6 to hop back online so we can hammer out a few details first. And honestly, those deleted posts have nothing to do with any kind of political agenda, anyone looking at them can see exactly why they had to go...

And where exactly did Brian Edwards6 disappear to? Was it just following orders from on high?

I honestly wonder what it would take for you to move this thread over to the Politics section. It would allow us to actually discuss people without having to deal with this constant legalistic and police-style censorship. I suspect the moderators over there wouldn't have any issue letting a topic like this slide.

EDIT: I see that... 👍Thirteen has returned to the fold, but my proposal regarding the reallocation still stands.

Walter Watson5 said:Is it standard behavior for Microsoft Access 2010 to mess up alphabetical sorting, or am I just misconfiguring something? Everything starting with a special character seems to be treated exactly like its basic Latin counterpart—for instance, "check" is being sorted before "certain."

I would suggest checking your language settings and the specific collation settings within the database.

Dana Diaz8 said:It sounds to me like you're running some pirated version of Office, likely some buggy crack you pulled off a shady site... ☕

P.S. I know we aren't technically supposed to bring this up on this thread, but I figured I'd say it anyway just so people can stop wasting their lives spinning their wheels over it.

Quite the opposite.
I would never personally shell out the cash for that junk, but my previous employer provided it as part of my workstation setup.
Besides, looking at the forums, most people complaining about this exact same issue seem to be using legitimate versions.

Betty Hayes10 said:Run an antivirus scan or just wipe everything and reinstall Office.
I used to deal with much worse glitches back when I was using Office 2007.
Every single time I hit Ctrl+S, the window would simply vanish, taking everything I’d typed right along with it.
Old habits die hard, and I can't tell you how many times I reflexively pressed Ctrl+S only to watch my work disappear.
It wasn't resolved until I performed a clean installation on a completely fresh OS.

Thanks again, but honestly, that doesn't have anything to do with what I'm facing.
I ran into this exact same issue with previous installations, and if you look online, the internet is flooded with similar stories where no actual solution exists.
It’s just your classic "You Ain't Bugged" scenario—the kind of thing Microsoft refuses to acknowledge or even care about.

bluecyclist64 said:I appreciate it. 👍
There are a few different workarounds being suggested here, so I’ll give them a shot and see if any of them actually stick.

None of that worked... 👎
Gates can go straight to hell for this one...😠

Benjamin Wilson7 said:A lot of people run into this exact same issue. I actually kept an archived version of this site, so

take a look over here

I appreciate it. 👍
There seem to be a few different workarounds listed, so I'll give them a shot. Hopefully, one of them actually does the trick.

Dana Diaz8 said:ovo No. It is perfectly logical that you are running into this issue. You are attempting to save your edits directly onto a file that has been designated as Read-Only, which is fundamentally impossible. If the file properties are set to Read-Only from the start, the system simply won't allow you to overwrite the existing data. It’s a basic restriction, much like trying to write on a laminated sheet without a pen.

Of course it isn't working. I opened a brand-new document and saved it several times without a single hiccup, only for Word to suddenly decide it's Read-Only. There was absolutely nothing in the file settings to suggest it was set to Read-Only from the start.

There is one fundamental way to handle this issue: whenever you encounter a situation like the one described, simply make it a rule to Save as a completely new file every single time.

That isn't the solution we should be looking for. The actual fix would be for Microsoft Office to simply stop forcing documents into Read-Only mode in the first place.

There is a second way to tackle this issue if the first method fails you. You can simply right-click on the document icon itself, navigate to Properties, and look under the General tab. From there, try unchecking the box labeled Read-Only. Once you’ve done that, make sure to hit Apply rather than just clicking OK to ensure the changes actually stick. It’s a straightforward fix, though I’ve found that sometimes Windows can be a bit stubborn about recognizing the change immediately.

It’s a bit of a losing battle because Microsoft Office is already treating the file as Read-Only. If I attempt to close it and reopen it, everything I've just typed will simply vanish into thin air.

Betty Hayes10 said:Just exit that dialog box and save it the way you normally would.
The Read-Only status is likely happening because the file is already open, and you're attempting to copy it over itself while it's active.
Use "Save as" if you want to keep the original untouched and just save a new version under a different name.
Are you using the 2003 version?

I appreciate the attempt to help, but you missed the mark entirely.
Does anyone here actually have experience with Word XP? I'm trying to figure out why a document suddenly switches to Read-Only mode without any clear reason or trigger.
I've combed through the shortcuts, but I can't find a single command that manually toggles a document into a read-only state.

Here is the situation I’m facing:
While working in Word, I occasionally hit Ctrl+S to save my progress.
However, on several occasions, instead of saving, the Save as dialog box pops up, and I find myself unable to overwrite the original file because it has somehow become Read-Only. This forces me to save the document under a completely new filename every single time, which is an incredibly tedious disruption to my workflow.
Is there a specific shortcut I might be accidentally hitting that toggles a document into Read-Only mode? Or could this be stemming from a deeper technical issue?
If there is anyone out there with a bit of expertise who could point me in the right direction, I would certainly appreciate the help.

feralpilot0 said:I really have zero interest in bickering with some uninitiated parachute lawyer—sorry, not happening.
I’m just flagging this for the admins; I’m not even asking for sanctions until something more blatant occurs.

Then why don't you just say who you're talking about?

Well, since I find myself back here and the topic has resurfaced, I might as well suggest Galactic Center by Gregory Benford.
The first two books, Into the Ocean of Night and Across the Sea of Stars, were originally published by Penguin Random House over in the States—specifically through their Centaur imprint—and likely the rest followed after things shifted. That said, if you have a decent handle on English, I’d strongly advise reading them in the original language.

It’s almost funny; for decades, guys like Arthur C. Clarke spent their time trying to convince me there was zero chance aliens would just show up and wipe us out like some cheap 1950s B-movie trope (or those modern pieces of trash like Independence Day or War of the Worlds). Then, suddenly, some kid who actually takes science seriously pops up and tells me that such an invasion could be perfectly logical.
I'd love to see the looks on your faces right now. Anyone else feeling a bit enlightened? 🍿