The thing is, there isn't even an option to adjust the font size, the typeface, or the color. That’s exactly why mine looks this way—it's just stuck. Even trying to force it with CSS code doesn't seem to work at all...
It’s honestly fascinating to me—how actors who have actually won an Oscar end up starring in absolutely brainless movies, often delivering some truly terrible performances. A prime example of this kind of disaster, despite having a cast full of legends, would be Las Vegas (2013). To me, every single one of them was just subpar—the whole movie was garbage.
Looking at the cast from that film, the one most prone to this kind of career meltdown has to be Robert De Niro; he just keeps picking these trash projects. Then you have DiCaprio—I don't think he'll ever quite get there. I doubt he’ll ever stumble into something like this: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2361509/ (where he looks and acts like a complete idiot—just making a fool of himself) or even https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3276924/
I have a feeling that if Angelo Jurkas offered him a tiny supporting role in a new movie where they just sat around making homemade chili, he’d probably take it.
I mean, who is actually going to protect me from you? Seriously. Who? You’re just tearing through these threads one after another. It feels like you only opened this topic just to come after me—why? Why even do this? What is actually wrong with you? And why is anyone letting you get away with it?
rustydrifter10 said:Look, if this is how you approach every single post, then we’ve got a serious issue on our hands. Seriously, quit the ad hominem attacks and try focusing on the actual substance of the post. If you can't manage to do that, you're better off just scrolling past.
rustydrifter10, the guy is clearly baiting me—just look at his behavior. He needs to provide actual evidence.
Kenneth Cruz67 said:Just because that happens to be how you feel? I guess I have to wonder who you think you are, judging me like that.
If you could please just spare me this condescending attitude, I’d really appreciate it; if there are any actual issues with my posts, maybe just report them to the moderators instead. Just leave me be.
Provide rustydrifter10 with the evidence she asked for—you provocateur.
Kenneth Cruz67 said:Just because that happens to be how you feel? I guess I have to wonder who you think you are, judging me like that.
If you could please just spare me this condescending attitude, I’d really appreciate it; if there are any actual issues with my posts, maybe just report them to the moderators instead. Just leave me be.
Look, man—stop being so aggressive. And please, enough with the trolling.
Provide rustydrifter10 with the evidence she asked for.
Kenneth Cruz67 said:I suppose it might just be a recurring little flaw of yours, but I feel like you tend to jump right into a thread without even glancing at the three posts that came right before yours!
I honestly feel like I could stand behind that statement with total confidence—I really do think you’re absolutely right in this case!
I have to agree with you there—you’re being a total troll and honestly, you're just completely ruining the thread.
Well, if that’s how you see things, I suppose you should probably take it up with the moderators and the admin team directly, since they're the ones running the show!
So, you finally caught on to the little triangle trick, have you? I guess that’s something! But wait, does that mean you’re still completely in the dark about how the ignore button works? It seems like people think they can just go around upsetting everyone on the forum whenever they feel like it, as if being a nuisance is some kind of permitted hobby here.
Of course I’m aware of the little triangle icon, and believe me, I definitely know how the ignore feature works too. But just because I might decide to hit that button and tune you guys out doesn't exactly give anyone the right to be so incredibly disrespectful toward me.
The truth is, you simply don't know what you're talking about—do you realize that? It’s embarrassing. Do you understand that you've completely derailed a thread of vital importance? Or that on this current Philosophy board, you're making claims that are totally irrelevant to the subject at hand? Do you grasp that your blatant ignorance—which, I sincerely hope, you aren't spreading in your professional life—is adding absolutely nothing to this community? Honestly, I feel secondhand embarrassment just reading your posts, and I'm embarrassed for anyone else who has to deal with them.
I’m requesting that my excellent thread be restored—the one this individual completely trashed.
Furthermore, I ask that he be sanctioned for spreading falsehoods, provocations, and baiting—it's unfortunate that people like him end up ruining the good, high-quality discussions. Generally speaking, decent people just get screwed over because of individuals like this.
My very first post in this thread—it was actually the seventh one in line.
Your actual first post in this thread was way down at number 46.
I guess you're just trying to feed a troll who's already full, and it's not even noon yet!
Exactly. You're a troll, plain and simple, and you're just wrecking the threads.
Even if I am talking nonsense, there's still that little icon used to report off-topic posts or spam. Or has insulting, mocking, and trolling suddenly become allowed?
Oh, so now you've discovered the report button? Funny. And you seem to have missed the "ignore" option entirely. I guess harassing people in their private messages is perfectly fine now, is it?
Is this stalking? My points are factual. These are my only direct responses to you—though I’ll admit the last one wasn't quoted properly.
I am requesting that this malicious provocateur be sanctioned. Why? Because he specifically targeted me regarding this topic; his posts weren't even present when I first commented on this thread. He knows exactly how to provoke to derail a discussion—which is precisely what he did here, ruining the very thread for which he was granted permission by the FBI.
It is a matter of user conduct.
Why is this being permitted?
Kenneth Cruz67 said:I think there are plenty of similar examples scattered across at least two other threads, mostly involving unprovoked comments directed at things taken completely out of context from my private conversations with others.
And then there's everything else mentioned above.
Even if I were somehow writing nonsense—which I doubt—there should be some kind of button to report off-topic posts or spam, right? Or has insulting, mocking, and trolling suddenly become perfectly acceptable here?
On top of that, the vocabulary and general manners used here seem to be at the level of a lumberjack. Everything is just exploding with phrases like "you're full of it," "you're sick," or "you're an idiot," and things of that nature.
Since he hasn't produced a shred of evidence—mostly because his accusation is flat-out false—and given everything I've already laid out in my previous post, it’s pretty clear this entire thread is being driven by bad faith.
It is incredibly low of you to open this thread—making these rude, pathetic accusations that I am stalking you—while playing dumb. Under the forum’s general terms of use, specifically in section 15, acting in bad faith is prohibited, just as harassing other users is forbidden under section 13. I vehemently reject these claims; the threads I comment on have always been strictly dedicated to philosophy and natural science. In truth, I think you are targeting me by pretending to be some victim driven by twisted motives.
Since this individual keeps messaging my inbox to tell me to leave him alone—which makes no sense because I haven't bothered him—while simultaneously posting nonsense and playing ignorant about the "ignore" function I suggested, his behavior is irrational. He clearly ignores the ignore tool, considering that since his first inbox request (following our initial interaction on a thread after he was unbanned weeks ago), I haven't even once quoted one of his posts. How, then, can he claim I am commenting on him?
Furthermore, since I have been insulted so intellectually aggressively—and given that I regularly follow the science threads—I will take this opportunity to state that this user effectively destroyed my highly engaged and high-quality thread (and please, do not mistake this for some morbid excuse or alibi for the thread he has opened here) within the science section, which resulted in his permanent ban (which you have since lifted), and which the moderators now refuse to reopen. I have nothing against the man personally; he can post whatever garbage he likes, provided he doesn't complain when someone comments on that garbage or mocks him for constant off-topic rambling. I am the last person who would engage in the behavior I am being accused of, and I view this entire situation as an insult and blatant trolling aimed at me.
I have addressed his off-topic remarks perhaps two or three times—without using quotes—which is standard practice given the nonsense he typically writes, on the thread belonging to the Philosophy section.
It seems we are seeing a new level of his mission to disrupt both the community and the discussions.
I do not intend to participate in this debate any further; this is all I have to say regarding this matter. As the attached evidence shows, this person has leaked private information and essentially baited me into this. This is a legitimate issue—it is evident the man has developed a fixation, likely because he believes his partiality in the science section is due to me, which it is not. (I reported the harassment via private message on 5.3.)
northerntiger said:Mentioning specific names like that—it’s just senseless. It doesn't even warrant a response. It's nothing more than childish insults aimed at political opponents, basically on par with saying "their feet stink."
🤣🤣
Total garbage (Clinton), various others...
🤣🤣🤣
EDIT: Over on the thread about Hillary Clinton, someone actually used a crude slur for her.
I usually do this when a movie starts feeling a bit tedious—though I wouldn't say I'm ready to call it quits entirely. (In the poll, I selected: I'm not particularly fond of the idea, but if it's necessary, I'll manage)
Watching movies like that is mostly just pointless. We aren't talking about an epic trilogy here where you might need longer breaks—unless, of course, you're just stepping out to use the restroom or grabbing a glass of water from the kitchen.
So, I’m requesting a partial removal from Zillow and for this thread to be deleted—just like this one here:
I feel like these threads are dragging down the quality of my overall contributions—and honestly, I think that’s a valid reason to ask for a favor, especially since those 500 points were taken away unfairly.
Is that fair? I'm just asking you to wipe them out because they really bother me. Ultimately, they're just foolish and pointless—and I truly have much better content elsewhere.
This discussion really needs to focus more on Marshall McLuhan—who, I noticed, hasn't been mentioned at all, which isn't surprising—and his concept of the global village. For anyone looking to get acquainted with him, I’d suggest picking up a book by Douglas Coupland.
A quick summary via Wikipedia:
McLuhan is perhaps best known for his catchphrase "the medium is the message" and the term "global village." He actually predicted the internet and the World Wide Web decades before they were discovered. He reached the height of his fame in the 1960s, but was largely forgotten shortly after his death. With the arrival of the internet, McLuhan resurfaced from obscurity, sparking a renewed interest in his work. Source: wiki.
After publishing *Understanding Media*, McLuhan achieved worldwide fame, though he was quickly sidelined following his passing. However, his ideas and works have been revitalized by the information revolution. To a new generation of hackers, journalists, and theorists, McLuhan's legacy is often described as something almost religious or prophetic. Source: wiki.
Man, he understood the internet. He basically *was* the internet back in the sixties. The world is finally catching up to him now. In that sense, he was "online"—he was in touch with the entire world... He was connected long before the editors at > were even born. He was truly connected. Source: wiki.
While he occasionally expressed doubt regarding the impact of media on civilization, McLuhan was deeply convinced that the electronic age creates spaces akin to spiritual connections between humans and gods—much like the faith people immerse themselves in without question or critique. Source: wiki.
We are rapidly approaching the final stage of human extensions—a technological simulation of consciousness where the creative process of knowledge will collectively encompass all of human society, just as we have already extended our senses and limbs through various media. Source: wiki.
In 1993, > adopted McLuhan as their "patron saint." McLuhan was using the term "surfing" nearly forty years ago, and his theses on mass media feel more relevant in the internet age than ever. This professor is now considered a classic in media studies. Source: wiki.
Correction regarding an inaccuracy in the opening post and a few subsequent entries.
We live in 4D, not 3D. You're overlooking the dimension of time—which, arguably, is the most critical factor here. A 3D model is merely a static image where time doesn't flow.
Mark Cruz15 said:Aside from Forrest Gump, Tom Hanks isn't exactly known for his transformations—which, in my opinion, should be a primary criterion when making a selection.
Are you referring to physical transformations? Like dropping or gaining 50 pounds like Christian Bale—or those Oscar-winning maneuvers by Gary Oldman?
To provide some context on why astrology feels so accurate to so many people—it’s actually a psychological phenomenon known as the Barnum effect, named after its primary figure
I think everyone deals with them to some degree—honestly, just let them exist in the moment, and eventually, your brain will start to filter them out on its own.