Posts by bluemason3

While you're waiting on brisktrucker51, looks like your ban lasts until the 17th.

I'm guessing he handed out 100 points for a one-day ban, but since you already had 500 in the bank, that brings you to 600—which equals two weeks.

Sandra Wells66 said:Honestly, this post caught me completely off guard.

Welcome to the philosophy department.😁>

Generally speaking, water cooling works better during dry heat than when the humidity is high.

You really need at least two AC units in a living space. I’m currently getting by with just one, thank goodness for 😁

Local elementary schools matter, but everything else really comes down to how well you can get around. For instance, living in a more mountainous region wouldn't be much of an issue for me, since you're usually just a quick drive away from either Seattle or Denver via a well-maintained interstate.

College obviously means the kid is going to need a place to stay, which is a financial hurdle you have to clear before you even worry about the logistics. But local K-12 options can often handle things just fine, and they aren't necessarily worse than what you find in the big cities, where there's plenty of variety anyway.

Extra-curricular activities and hobbies are definitely more limited, and managing those out-of-school commitments is a logistical headache. Whether that's enough of a downside to cancel out the perks of rural life—like having way more freedom to run around outside—is impossible to say for sure, but it wouldn't stop me from moving to the country.

The real thing to consider is that once college is over, kids will likely stick to the city. We aren't talking about some massive, high-profit commercial farm here, so an agronomy degree isn't exactly a ticket back home to work the land. Plus, growing old in a rural area isn't easy without help around the house. Then again, I'm not quite at the stage of life where I'm planning my retirement.

That’s also debatable. A family member actually complained to me about that exact "comfortable" lifestyle outside the city limits. When you reach a certain age, simple things—like running errands or keeping the house clean—become a chore. Since the kids live in the city, they can't just pop in every single day, and even in a major US metro area, there aren't enough professional or social services stepping in to help with the heavy lifting. Healthcare is another big factor, too, though an ambulance will certainly show up if things get critical. Unless you have multiple generations living under one roof—which is pretty rare, especially in a household that isn't truly subsistence farming—it seems more likely they'll have to move back into the city rather than stay out in the suburbs or rural areas.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Honestly, you two have been playing this game of three-dimensional chess for years now... but I truly can't wrap my head around how I even got pulled into this whole thing, let alone where his obsession actually stems from. 🤣

He’s just playing games in his own head. At least not since I stopped moderating "his" PDFs, which basically forced me into non-stop, mindless reading of every random person on the forum looking for therapy. 🤣
I didn't even bother reading this post until you brought him up. They all start to look the same after a while anyway. 🕺

You probably had some disagreement with him five to fifteen years ago. 🧐
Just ask him, though. I'm sure he has the screenshots archived somewhere. 😁

Joseph Bailey41 said:You just couldn't resist bringing me into this, could you? 🤣

If I mail you a copy of my book, will you finally cut me some slack on the... budget? 🙂

Holdmybeer

☕ 🤣

If I didn't dodge every single insinuation, I'd be doing a complete 180. 😬

Can I really make my first transaction for that much? Don't they usually have some kind of limit for beginners?

An adult is someone who has actually grown up; an individual is just a teenager trapped in an adult body, or at least possessing a teenage spirit. 🧐

Sandra Brown18 said:Speaking of intellectual property and "protecting" users.
I used to be a moderator for the tourism section (along with one other person). When threads popped up about specific travel agencies, there were plenty of complaints and criticisms leveled against certain companies. Those agencies would then pressure me to delete posts or penalize the users making them.
I refused. Instead, I told them they were more than welcome to register on this site and address the criticism publicly themselves.
The criticized companies didn't want to take that opportunity to defend themselves.
They kept coming at me, though. Persistent threats, too—even threatening me personally with lawsuits because I wouldn't cave. I did some digging into those agencies, and it turned out they were being sued by people from all over.
I brought the matter to the other moderators in our private group to see how they’d handle such threats, and we had a brief debate about it. I don't have access to the moderator portal anymore, so I can't provide a link... but it’s not really relevant now.
The bottom line is that some of those agencies went under, and lawsuits were indeed filed. If I had buckled under the pressure and started deleting comments or banning users, people would still be booking trips through those scammers, completely unaware of the bad experiences others had had.
Of course, not every critique on a forum is valid; there's always going to be some exaggeration, which is expected. That's exactly why I gave those companies a chance to respond. That’s what a forum is for: discussion, where everyone has a chance to reply if they feel they've been wronged.
None of my colleagues or supervisors stood by me back then. So much for "protecting" moderators, let alone the users.

One more thing: late February last year (right after Wuhan was locked down), a few of us were warning everyone about the dangers of COVID-19. We were frequently flagged or banned by a moderator who insisted it was just the flu.
Unfortunately, the death tolls in the US and globally show the virus was significantly more dangerous than the flu. For those of us who were constantly getting banned or warned, we never received an apology for being right about the epidemic risk.

Similarly, I was attacked for allegedly making things up regarding offers for the Port of Cleveland (rejections). Various news outlets eventually published reports that confirmed what I had said (which critics claimed I "heard on a subway").
I’m still waiting for an apology from the users who attacked me and accused me of lying about how those offers were being rejected due to outside pressure.

Completely irrelevant.

An anonymous source from the transit authority told me that NN was busy snooping through the IP addresses of all the leftists on this forum back when she was a moderator. Because of that, I’m calling for a permanent ban.☕

Linda King said:Well, they seem to enjoy a certain level of trust from colleagues on this thread. For what it's worth. Sure, if someone shows up at a house or rings a doorbell, getting an IP address—whether through a forum leak or a legal subpoena—is just step one. An ISP would have to get involved too to actually link that IP to a person. Look, it's possible. It's also possible that back in 2010, this forum was a total Wild West. Who knows. Some reassurance from the admins and Anderson regarding privacy here wouldn't hurt.

But going back to the start, Mark Harris66 kicked this whole thing off by saying she heard about it over in Women's Corner and then, after some brief (and unusual) hesitation, provided links to the source. So, she wasn't lying; she based her belief on stories from two female users whom many others trusted.

That’s enough for me regarding nn (to whom I apologize); anything else falls outside the scope of this specific discussion (what was actually happening at the time). Though, honestly, I'd love to know.

Now... out of those two, one said she didn't think it came from the site itself, while for the other, it's unclear if there's actual proof, if someone told her unverified rumors, or if she just made a "gut feeling" guess that they found her that way—which is actually quite likely.

And when nn said that this was a claim made by one user or another, she presented it as a fact, quoting:

A few years ago in Women's Corner, people showed up at a user's door because of some totally harmless gossip (a disgraced public figure had requested the forum's IP address).

And it's framed as if this were some standard or official procedure from high-level authorities, since it wasn't some moderator friend leaking info, but rather "she requested it from the forum."
Even if she did get it, that wouldn't be enough; the disgraced public figure would still have to go to the ISP to track down an actual address. Maybe it was Kolinda and she mobilized the secret services? 😁 Eit: Fuck, back then it was Jacqueline and Ivo Josipović. 🤣

Sandra Brown18 said:To be clear,
this whole argument started because someone claimed the mods were turning a blind eye to posts using certain phrases like "saw her on the subway."
Then came the breakdown of where that phrase actually comes from and why people use it.
I even pointed out the specific origin story and the incident that set this trend in motion.
So, here was the starting point:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=3...postcount=3884
Ever since everyone got spooked by that, there’s been a real effort to avoid citing sources directly.
One of our most active female users—someone pretty much everyone here knows—actually backed up similar claims:
https://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=3984

The site rules don't actually require you to cite a source for every single claim you make.

Nothing mentioned above actually says that.

The woman herself even admitted she isn't sure if it actually originated from the forum.

If the police really did show up at someone's door, it likely happened through official channels, like a warrant or a subpoena.

The post she's replying to is a mess, but even she doesn't know where the info actually came from(and an Intel address alone is never enough; you'd need another agency involved)..

That is, assuming anyone is telling the truth here. If we aren't talking about a legal procedure—like a court order, (which is what happens when the cops show up), then lawyers who are just looking out for themselves end up incriminating themselves. They might accidentally provide a trail that leads right back to whoever leaked the data. Are those lawyers really that incompetent?

As for "Kiss me," it's all vague nonsense. Could some 20-year-old kid working in tech find something? Probably. Could they hack someone? Maybe, though I doubt it's as "everyday" as people claim. In either case, we're talking about serious stuff that probably doesn't happen nearly as often as suggested.

There are other possibilities too. Maybe someone tracked them down without ever touching an Intel address, and they just assumed that's how it happened because it sounds more dramatic.
I'm not sure how the law handles it if you hire a private investigator or a data analyst to try and unmask someone just by piecing together their posts, cross-referencing social media activity, and matching that against real-world identities.

Sandra Brown18 said:I have the right to protect my sources.
That’s just standard journalistic practice.

Sure, but that journalist can still get sued into oblivion if they end up in court without any actual evidence or verifiable sources to back them up.

A serious investigative reporter isn't going to rely solely on what a source whispered in their ear unless they've managed to find independent proof or dug up extra documentation to verify those claims.

One recurring headache I’ve had with them lately is their inventory management. Half the time, what’s listed online isn't actually in stock, so they call you up later to push an alternative or tell you it’s a special order. Other than that, I haven't run into anything major—nothing worse than the usual hiccups. It’s not like we’re handling fragile porcelain here 😬

Regarding gloves, I haven't really messed with their budget line. I have one of their house-brand bags that holds up fine for light use at home. Maybe some clothing too, but I usually just grab the cheap stuff for low-impact gear. I don't skimp on gloves, so I can't speak to their lower end, but let's be real: you aren't getting much when the materials are subpar. Even finding decent vinyl is tough, let alone high-quality leather, and then there's the padding and stitching to consider. Gloves are like shoes—if you're spending less than a hundred bucks, don't expect to climb Everest in them, and expect them to smell a bit more often 😬

I didn't see anything about haggling over prices, though. That sounds incredibly shady 🤣
I'll give it some thought next time 😬

At the end of the day, you can always just order from somewhere else in Europe.

Chris Myers said:It’s just a byproduct of modern society and all its flaws. This isn't unique to America, either. Sadly, we'll probably see more of this, and I fear the frequency is only increasing.

But honestly, when has any society—past or present—been free of stuff like this? What strikes me more is how relatively rare these things actually are. It suggests things are going much better than we care to admit.

The boundaries are epistemological, not found within the research data itself.

If you cross those epistemological lines, you’ve effectively stepped out of the realm of science and straight into mysticism.

Sandra Murphy33 said:At that point, you’re talking about transcendence or pure guesswork. 😉

A Sage would be someone who, in most instances, "guesses" correctly—meaning they possess a predictive power reliable enough to base one's positioning upon.
If that foresight serves the entire community, then we call them a Sage.
If it serves nothing but their own interests, they aren't a Sage; they're just a trader... or perhaps an entrepreneur. 😎
That's it

Not all guesswork is created equal. Guessing seven numbers on a Powerball ticket is wildly unreliable, so the attempt itself isn't particularly wise.

Predicting climate change, however, isn't quite the same thing. While the results aren't 100% certain, they are significantly more reliable than mere chance and certainly relevant.
That's because we aren't dealing with purely randomized events; we're dealing with highly complex systems. With enough experience, massive datasets, and decent analytical tools, you can make a pretty solid call on what's coming next.

I’d make a distinction here between guessing and predicting. If we define guessing as an attempt to hit a target in a randomized scenario—whether truly random or just appearing that way because we lack good data and analysis (either objectively or just from our limited perspective)—then prediction is its exact opposite.

Even if a prediction benefits the community, if the person is part of that group, they're still just a trader. An empathetic altruist is essentially just an automated trader who lacks the intelligence or self-awareness to recognize their own transactional mechanics. In fact, they might be so controlled by these internalized, automatic impulses that they can't even correct them when they become dysfunctional, which isn't exactly wise.

Sandra Murphy33 said:That’s true, but the problem is that humans aren't capable of perceiving their full spectrum of interests. We mostly just see the ones tied to our immediate physical needs today or perhaps tomorrow.
In that case, ethics becomes irrelevant; what you actually need is the skill to wage war and maintain control over your enemies.
As for some grand concept of "wisdom," let's not even bother discussing it.

Maybe that’s the best definition of a wise person: someone capable of looking beyond the immediate moment.