May I ask a quick question just to ensure we’re on the same page? What is the reasoning behind requesting a partial removal? Naturally, you want access to the Policy, but why specifically do you feel they should consider stripping it back?
Why stop at just sending the chassis for crash testing? If we have the budget, couldn't the entire engineering team just burn through the remaining funds by endlessly tweaking aerodynamic components?
Well, I suppose everything that needed to be said has already been laid out, so I’m locking this thread. If a supermoderator or an admin feels there is more to contribute, they are welcome to reopen it.
Richard Palmer90 said:I would like to take this opportunity to thank her for the selfless assistance she has provided to hundreds of forum members (directly via PDF Politics)
We aren't discussing Politics here; our colleague Mark Harris66 isn't a moderator over there, after all. Rather, we are addressing the possibility of selective intervention regarding potentially well-argued posts within the Tourism subforum.
We aren't responding well to these threats, and frankly, I’m not sure what you hope to achieve by doing this... The thirty-day ban is essentially a done deal at this point; I assume that's exactly what you're fishing for. If that is indeed your goal, fine. You can have it.
Links... Without links, we don't really have anything to discuss, do we? (Of course, there wouldn't be much to say regardless if you were referring to those recent posts the moderators haven't had a chance to act on yet following your reports, but you're far too seasoned a forum veteran to fall for such a thing.)
Fine, let's just keep this thread here as a matter of record.
(For the record, this thread is being moderated under the exact same standards as any other, and the bans are simply the inevitable result of heated tempers.)
As a rule, we don't distribute permissions upon request, so I suggest you simply log out. Furthermore, I would advise you to reach out to the moderators on the specific subforums where you have posted, both regarding this situation and if you intend to continue using your other handle. Consider the policy matter settled, though we wouldn't want things to stall elsewhere.
Regarding the partial data, the three of us should probably discuss that here...
Thanks, and take care. I honestly couldn't care less whether someone gets their partial credit cleared for Religion or not—I'm sure the sub-moderator over at the Religion board can weigh in on that while the thread is locked. However, when it comes to the Philosophy department, we aren't going to have any circus acts happening here.
Let’s try this: provide a credible link within a reasonable timeframe regarding those 662 priests killed over the poisoning of modern art and the avant-garde, and you won't face a ban for blatant, revisionist trolling. Don't attempt to expand the debate or call for backup; simply provide a link to any historically relevant source.
I wouldn't be particularly shocked if Fernando Alonso made the move to Mercedes, but I would honestly expect them to recruit and develop someone younger instead. I am not quite sure why they would need two massive superstars, especially when both seem to be on the downward slope of their careers. (And before mellowtiger83 loses his mind here: Lewis Hamilton is incredible, but he’s reached an age where it is difficult to imagine him getting any better in the coming years).
The issue regarding the deleted post has been settled, and whether high-ranking government officials ought to be mindful of which flags they pose with is hardly a discussion that belongs on this subforum.
Thanks for clearing that up, William Bennett53. You're absolutely right; any excursions into fascism or those websites that promote it without compromise get censored immediately.
Fascism and communism simply aren't the same thing, regardless of their respective sins—and while both ideologies have certainly committed atrocities, one is inherently criminal by its very design. We've clarified this point numerous times before. For that reason, November 22nd is fundamentally different from April 15th.
Look, Spahn, you’ve already been given all the answers. It’s unfortunate you aren't satisfied with them, but this isn't the place to vent your frustrations. At the end of the day, anything that can be said about Oliver Stone, Ante Tomic, or Madeleine Albright could just as easily be said about Kamala Harris. Achieving perfect balance isn't always easy, which is precisely why we have human moderators making decisions rather than leaving it to some mindless computer algorithm. Most comments directed at politicians will be allowed to stand; some will be deleted, others will result in a warning, and some might face both. The criteria for these actions have already been laid out in the previous posts.
If a significant majority of forum members decides to advocate for banning harsh language toward politicians altogether, then we can certainly open a discussion on the matter. However, if such a rule were implemented, it would apply to everyone equally; Kamala Harris won't receive any special treatment.
Precisely. A user simply needs to coordinate their posting schedule with the moderators using a different handle. The key is ensuring there is no collusion.