Just a definition... "Netiquette" is just a shorthand for two words...netWork... and that French word "être"...iquetteJust some ground rules... stay respectful! In other words, it's just about the rules of conduct for our online community... basically, how to act on these forums!
One of the golden rules of netiquette... don't yell! Use lowercase letters instead...! Second rule: skip the bolding and underlining in every comment. And definitely don't go bolding or underlining capital letters in every single one...
If we all start using bold, italics, and ALL CAPS in every single comment... where does it even end...?
A classic example of what happens when someone ignores basic netiquette... Despite all the polite attempts at explaining things, it’s still just more of the same... back and forth in the comments... 😳 I really hope things improve soon... It would be wonderful if everyone could just get along! I think we should just wait for more data to come in... it’s better to be sure! I haven't seen any news about that yet... fingers crossed! I really hope we can find some common ground on this soon... It would be wonderful!
I'll skip mentioning any links... Of course, everything in bold... and... Signed and sealed...!: How many of us on here actually speak Arabic...? 🙄
Is there at least some basic set of netiquette rules on this forum... just wondering!
Let's hit back with some style—think classic American beauty. They're coming at us with those heavy coverings. Just look at this perfect example: the spokesperson for the US Department of State. One stylish American girl is worth seven of those outfits from the Islamic Republic. 😬
I have no idea why this is being treated as a separate topic... totally makes no sense.
P.S. By the way... Right now, $1,000 gets you about 34,000 rials. You could practically use it as toilet paper...
Charles Fox10, your warning about the Syria thread doesn't actually relate to what I was saying in my last two posts...
It’s not about English or any other foreign language. It’s about cluttering up the thread (links, bold text, underlining, three lines of space, more links, more bolding, more underlining, etc.).
As for foreign languages, it's totally irrelevant here. Just wanted to remind you though...
It’s an interesting topic, but definitely follows the same pattern. A link, **bolded**, underlined, three lines of space, then another link, **bolded**, underlined, more spacing, and so on...
Every single "comment" has at least five links, with three lines of space between each one, all bolded and underlined. Just more of the same nonsense... A link, three blank lines, bolded,underlined, then another link, more spacing, then bolded, then underlined. It just keeps going.
You open a thread and just two of these "comments" take up the whole screen. 🤦
It's useless trying to politely point this out on the thread; nobody listens.
If the whole point of this thread is just spamming links, just say so. Then the rest of us can join in on the circus, instead of actually trying to write a real comment (using maybe one or two links tucked behind words so we don't clutter up the forum).
slybison8 said:If anyone missed a moderation call on that thread, it would've been me, not Rez. So I don't see why you're getting so worked up about him...
As far as I'm concerned, feel free to shoot me a DM anytime if there’s an issue with a thread—I don't see any reason to drag a controversial post into the main forum before either myself or another mod gets a chance to handle the complaint directly on the PDF...
So, if no intervention happened, or even if the reported post wasn't muted by a moderator, then I really don't see a basis for an appeal.
Messages sent via the "report" button aren't always reliable, and I don't check them constantly—so I only respond to issues flagged through private messages, provided I'm given a reasonable amount of time to look into them...
I hardly ever use DMs. Only for private matters... (Honestly, using DMs to report posts feels like an invasion of privacy).
The report button exists for a reason, right? That's what it's for...
I'm done talking about the muting situation. I've said my piece...
Sam Green73 said:http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=baliya
The word baliya isn't allowed on this forum...
Oh, please.
1. Since when does some random "Urban Dictionary" entry decide what counts as a slur on an American forum?
2. Why is the word “baliya” banned if, according to that very same dictionary you're using as your main argument, it's just used to describe descendants of Turks of ottoman empire in The north America ("baliya is a term used to describe descendants of Turks of ottoman empire in the north America")? I think you might have accidentally 🤷, missed the part right above. It's literally the intro to the definition...
3. Who decided that “baliya” is off-limits here but “Kike” is totally fine? Is that your personal rule, or is it coming from the site admins?
@Pringles, thanks for the link to that language site, didn't know it existed! I'll have to Google it...
Sam Green73 said:..... Still waiting on an answer to my question....
Here is a simple answer for you.
Is it actually allowed to call people "baliya" on this forum? (I tried Googling why the word "baliya" might be problematic, but I couldn't find anything.🙂 Just clarifying your reply so there's no confusion).
If it is permitted, then please, as a moderator, just state clearly: "The terms baliya and Kike are allowed here on this forum." That way we all know where we stand.
Lastly, FYI. Some of us aren't "Kikes," yet we still react to that kind of language... because of American history, because of the veterans, because of America's reputation in the world, and so on... Unfortunately, there are some mindsets where that just doesn't make sense.
Konev said:Sam Alvarez4 is just spewing nonsense all day long. Always trying to mislead everyone with propaganda straight out of Saudi newspapers. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if her organization is directly funded by the Saudi kingdom.
Oh please, I had no idea the Saudi government was paying me! I'll send my invoice back home to Saudi Arabia right this second...
Round two.
Konev said:Listen, Sam Alvarez4 is incredibly persistent when it comes to pushing ridiculous, laughable nonsense... clearly, whoever is funding her organization is paying her quite well. She’s definitely moved past being a beginner in the hierarchy. ....
Well, I'm actually at the top of the hierarchy. That's why I'm posting here on the forum...
Then we have someone showing up who has at least five banned profiles under their belt.
napadide said:She’d be better off using her Israeli connections to find a link to some major financial firm based in Paris; that level of fake morality and relentless deception would go far in peddling predatory loans to naive retirees. Or she could head to the Champs-Élysées to fleece Japanese tourists by offering them "authentic" Gucci or Caciocavallo Podolico made from cow's milk. It won't work on people with even the slightest bit of refined taste in politics or food. And even if someone did catch on, they'd only know privately—she’s embarrassing herself publicly in minutes, just like Vidovit Milan.
Wow, I am just stunned by this person's culinary expertise...
I’m not sure which forum you actually moderate, but where I hang out—the PDF world—you aren't doing anything at all... you're practically invisible. In my opinion, you should step down as a moderator there. There are plenty of younger people who could take over; they know the languages and it won't affect their family life one bit...
graniteridge6 said:Why does that even matter? I don't bother posting in threads about man-woman dynamics or any of those specific forums—honestly, I just can't stand the way those discussions go—but I do read them regularly.
And what does having a separate thread for incest have to do with this? We are talking about incest within the context of our current debate. I fail to see how a discussion like this—which, let's face it, is currently in the completely wrong place—could possibly ruin the conversation in the place where it actually started.
And this whole current talk about incest in the gay community is just a total coincidence. Oh, please!
It still feels so hypocritical to me that none of you stepped up for the actual incest thread. But when it comes to the gay community, oops, suddenly incest is pulled out of thin air... How hypocritical!
Elizabeth Price2 said:@graniteridge6: major props! 🙏 🙂 You’re probably the only one "from overseas" who actually gets my point when I’m drawing those comparisons between homosexuality and incest.
@Christian Torres3: Man, I have no clue how many legal perks there are. For instance—just speaking from my own experience with legal stuff—I once wanted my brother to just sign over his car to me. We were told we'd have to shell out a 5% tax, you know? So, we totally bailed on that idea. Apparently, married couples don't have to deal with that 5% thing at all 🤷 (if I remember correctly).
@moderators: Okay, what's the deal with banning stuff in a debate like this? Why did you try to shut this down before, only to turn around and allow it now on the FBI forums? 😕
I have the same question for you.
Who actually stopped you from talking about "Incest"?
graniteridge6 said:I honestly don't get why people are so terrified of actual debate—this sudden urge to just ban certain topics altogether. If I hold a position, and more importantly, if I have the data to back it up, I don't feel threatened just because someone introduces a fresh perspective into the conversation.
Look, I am against it—strongly against it—but what really gets under my skin is the attempt to force these rigid conversational frameworks on this forum. It’s all this reliance on "common sense" arguments as a way to shut down anything that doesn't align with personal biases. If you disagree with my point, hit me with a counter-argument; don't just try to censor the discussion.
@Christian Torres3—just speaking from experience here, I know a few incestuous couples who aren't actually looking to marry, but we are talking about the theoretical possibility. And fine, setting aside the legal rights they might have (which, granted, I'm not intimately familiar with, but I suspect they aren't quite EQUAL to those of a standard spouse or a sibling, especially when it comes to inheritance laws in the US), what is the actual reason to deny marriage to such individuals if they aren't planning on having children?
Nobody's scared, and nobody is banning anything here.
We are talking about incest. Just lay it all out there if someone doesn't get it yet. Back up your views and move on.
By the way, quick question. How many times have you actually posted on the "incest" thread? Or is everyone only reacting to it when it involves gay relationships?
If there’s already a thread specifically for "Incest," let's just move the discussion over there. Whether it's hetero, homo, or anything else... But please, don't bring it here to the FBI, and don't assume one way is the only way: homo doesn't always equal incest.
The mods really need to step in here with a key...
Elizabeth Price2 said:Okay, listen, for some people, an "a priori" assumption also implies we're talking about straight couples, too!
And regarding that "warped psyche" thing—well, back in the day (like, up until 1978 or whenever), homosexuality was actually officially labeled as having a warped psyche, and honestly, plenty of people still see it that way today. 🤷
Anyway, from what I gather, on the Politics and Religion forum, it's forbidden to draw parallels between incest and homosexuality. So, I'm curious—if we can't talk about it there, where on earth *can* we actually have a civilized debate or argue the point? Like, over on the FBI forum 😕 ?
Whether they're straight or gay, it doesn't matter. Basically, we're talking about consenting adults who aren't closely related by blood...
Elizabeth Price2 said:Okay, listen, for some people, an "a priori" assumption also implies we're talking about straight couples, too!
And regarding that "warped psyche" thing—well, back in the day (like, up until 1978 or whenever), homosexuality was actually officially labeled as having a warped psyche, and honestly, plenty of people still see it that way today. 🤷
Anyway, from what I gather, on the Politics and Religion forum, it's forbidden to draw parallels between incest and homosexuality. So, I'm curious—if we can't talk about it there, where on earth *can* we actually have a civilized debate or argue the point? Like, over on the FBI forum 😕 ?
If we look back, internet forums haven't even been around that long! Without those pioneers pushing the tech forward, we wouldn't even have the chance to debate anything today. We'd all just be stuck sending emails to one another... (My generation, for instance, didn't even know what a forum was until the late 90s)...
Timothy Martinez6 said:I have two questions for those in charge who might actually give me an answer.
On the thread "Questions regarding homosexuality from social and religious perspectives" (over on Religion), there’s a recurring argument used to support legalizing same-sex unions that goes something like this: "The fact that people live together and love one another should be enough reason to allow them to enter into civil marriage." To test the logic of that specific argument, I brought up the case of incest and asked if we should also allow such unions since those individuals can also live together and love one another. My goal was simply to see if we are being consistent with this reasoning or if we are applying double standards. My response was that I am forbidden from using an "incest parallel" for same-sex unions—which earned me a ban—yet I am supposedly allowed to use a "polyamory parallel."
Since I haven't received a clear or logical explanation as to why an incest comparison is off-limits while polyamory is acceptable—especially when both serve to test the validity of the same argument supporting same-sex legalization—I would like a more precise clarification...
Furthermore, since I was directed to try this line of questioning over on Politics, I want to know if I am permitted to test arguments there using similar parallels (if they arise)? Or am I just going to get banned there too?
I am speaking strictly for myself.
If I say, "The fact that people live together and love one another should be enough to allow them to enter into a civil marriage," I am inherently assuming we are talking about consenting adults who share no close blood relation. The latter—incest—would only cross a person's mind if they had a truly warped psyche.