Posts by Christian Taylor3

rustydrifter10 said:Right now, I'm the only one handling the admin side of things. There isn't much to dig into here, because just like mods come and go, the same goes for supermods and admins. If you want more specifics than that, you can always reach out via message, but whether they actually bother to reply is entirely up to them.

There’s definitely something to ask, rustydrifter10. I really don't care about anyone's reasons—especially private ones—and there's absolutely no need to drag this into private messages either (that's a classic way to dodge the subject, and trust me, I've been around long enough to know the drill). The actual topic at hand is how the forum is (or isn't) functioning; we're sticking to the "Messages, complaints, comments" thread on the PDF.

The forum has basically dwindled down to a single admin, so how is it supposed to function with just one person running the show? We already saw how poorly it worked when there were three of them—it barely lasted a few months after the previous administration stepped down.

Honestly, I'm just hoping the forum gets a fresh administrative team without any of the old baggage. Tyndall was such a massive weight on your shoulders, and we really shouldn't be seeing those kinds of mistakes repeated. Also, regarding the suggestion to set admin terms for 12 months, we've seen time and again that these teams start falling apart by month six anyway.

You guys went ahead and locked the "question for administration" topic, which basically leaves me with nowhere to go—so what's actually going on with the Forum staff? I noticed Uncle Strile suddenly became a mod over in Religion, too, which has to be some kind of joke, or maybe he’s just serving out some sentence according to the DSM-IV. 😁

Who is even running this Forum these days?

OGM SA86 said:So, looks like Christian Taylor3 has finally gone and gotten himself obsessed with those sausages. 😁

Where on earth did I even mention stuffed cabbage? You’ve clearly spent way too much time out in the sun if you're making stuff up now.

You’re not wrong; this is just more fuel for the argument that they’re intentionally gutting the chat—and honestly, this butchering of the PDF moderation movie section has been going on for months now. Between the constant deleting of posts, nuking entire threads, and just sowing pure chaos among everyone here, the whole vibe is trashed. We've lost all our actual communication, and even the healthy, off-topic banter has been stripped away. It really feels like someone made a conscious decision to kill the conversation entirely; they're practically threatening to lock everything down, reducing the entire PDF moderation movie section to just a handful of repetitive, soul-crushing topics. 😁

I honestly haven't the slightest clue where we're all headed with this, but I’ve got this nagging, persistent feeling that we're drifting toward somewhere that's going to be just as wonderful as it is incredibly weird.

Have a good one.

Aba Normal said:I just finished watching it, and honestly, I can't recommend it enough.
There’s this tiny little formal slip-up that pretty much gives the whole thing away too early, though honestly, you might not even catch it.

So, they’ve officially announced a second season, but honestly, I’m struggling to see how they actually pull it off. It feels like they left absolutely zero room for a sequel in that finale, leaving us hanging without much of a roadmap, but hey, I guess we'll just have to see what happens.

Thanks, I'll get right on that just as soon as I'm back from vacation.

I was just reading somewhere that this whole series is basically nothing more than one giant, heartfelt tribute. LynchIs that actually true?

briskhound2 said:And honestly, the people whining about all this only started making noise once we got hit by that massive wave of new users who just lurk without ever actually posting (myself included, for what it's worth). So, technically, the influx of newbies is exactly what sent the chat into such a complete tailspin.

Well, obviously they were complaining about the "quality" of the chatter, because let's be real, the chat has tanked harder than it ever has before. You guys were busy tearing a girl to shreds, you call Loureeth a hipster, and then there was that whole mess with the internet connection where someone basically drew him a neon yellow map in chalk to explain that you can't just pay your way into faster speeds. Not that he listened, of course; he just kept blowing his own trumpet.

You haven't just ruined the vibe; you're well on your way to trolling the whole thing into oblivion.

briskhound2 said:Honestly, I’m just sitting here wondering if someone could give me a straight answer as to why nobody ever asks for series recommendations on this forum.

Don't make me laugh. There’s an entire PDF dedicated to just jerking off, so did it ever cross your mind to actually redirect users there instead?

briskhound2 said:This whole thread really started spiraling out of control a while back, right around the moment someone straight-up admitted that the chat had become a total train wreck. 🙄 It turns out he just got targeted by some other users, specifically Harper. So, the content itself isn't actually the issue here; it's just the people involved.

A few people, maybe four or five users, have already pointed out that the new one... cinematic Look, let's be real for a second. This chat is a total mess right now. It’s got nothing to do with Harper, honestly. People aren't just complaining for the sake of it; they're actually mourning the old days when this place felt like a real community—you know, where you could actually have a decent conversation or walk away having learned something useful instead of just wading through the noise.

It’s probably a good idea to give everyone a heads-up every single time they take that sharp turn onto the bypass. 😁

briskhound2 said:And who exactly is stopping them?

Besides, why wouldn't people just ask for series recommendations here on the forum? Is the PDF moderation film section just way too far away or something?

🤣

Bertolucci already explained it perfectly enough for you.

I'm too old for this shit.

There’s no such thing as a bad craving, a failed recipe, or just constant whining about how nothing is ever good enough.

Anything related to the world of audiovisual media is more than welcome here; nobody is going to shut down a conversation (though let's call them recommendations rather than debates) about a series, provided you don't drop any spoilers.

But the American films I like now do not come from Hollywood studios but from television series, like 'Mad Men,' 'Breaking Bad,' 'The Americans.' "I like when they last 13 episodes but then there is a new series coming with another 13 episodes," he said, laughing, comparing them to novels printed in installments in 19th century newspapers. "Apart from a few independent productions, i think that everything that comes from Hollywood is generally sad. It makes me very sad." Bernarda Bertolucci

quietdriver3 said:Henry Campbell5 says he’s planning to start "stirring the pot" and being provocative, basically giving a moderator an ultimatum.

I don't think that's really what constructive participation in a PDF movie community looks like.

You totally missed the second part of that, the whole "stirring the pot" and provocation bit. Ranting and criticizing the way this PDF movie is being run—well, looking at the neighboring thread, you guys deleted a post of his out of pure spite (and we all agree there was zero actual reason for it), which triggered a reaction from that user and got him permanently banned from the PDF movie. That’s your version of moderation: banning one user and then banning another on the very same day. They complained about those sneaky deletions—basically, mods baiting people—and labeled it "ad hominem, iranian style." Are those really valid reasons to kick someone off the PDF movie? Honestly, you should be embarrassed.

I also remember your little vendettas against Dr. Mabuse; he spent years hanging around other forums before getting booted after calling a mod a "stinker." No, that isn't objective or impartial moderation; it’s just ego. You don't need to explain the reasons for the bias against Henry Campbell5 to me—explain them to him. This attempt at an excuse is pathetic; go ahead and provide some actual, concrete reasons for this favoritism. You can't, because we both know they don't exist.

That isn't constructive participation in the activity of a PDF.

Day in and day out, you guys are proving how non-constructive your own involvement in this PDF is (especially regarding management; just look at the adjacent topic for proof). And who even brought up clans on the Movie section? We could talk about them too. From where I'm sitting, I see users who aren't even on speaking terms, yet they all share one commonality: you guys "really screwed up, and you should seriously be ashamed", and that's twice in just a few months. Going back to the clans, there’s really only one clique running the Movie section, a group that is systematically destroying it, turning it into a private club, and pushing out anyone they don't like. If you just recall Henry Campbell5's old critique about the "cult-like takeover" of the Movie section, the real reasons for this bias will become crystal clear—including things like pinning an American movie in the sticky PDF. We could dive into that too, without leaking any private info or names, obviously.

And to answer Patrick Martin: this isn't some public town square. Reddit is essentially someone's "private bathroom," and the whole problem is that this clique in the Movie section thinks they own the place. They don't. Reddit belongs to Anderlon, but even looking at the previous administration, it shows that the users are the ones who always come out on top. The situation in the Movie section has spiraled completely out of control, and problems are just piling up. Nobody is going to keep supporting this—it's high time the PDF movie gets a brand new crew of moderators.

🤣

This is going straight to the garbage pile. 😬

ruggedhawk20 said:Section 142.

... someone else's...

they'll face up to a year in prison.

There’s no such thing as "someone else's" when you're in a marriage; maybe try actually reading the American family law books for once.

Seriously, go read it.

Brenda Cook4 said:...even though feminism shows up in Merriam-Webster, the term was definitely coined (and predictably used as an insult) by Rush Limbaugh; regardless, it was launched into the global consciousness from his toxic platform.

Maybe it's Iocaste-society: The blindness of men for The feminist totalitarian regime of contemporary "postmodern" civilization perpetuates the iocaste-society.

Or maybe it's Gynecocracy: A form of rule that is imposed on the man by the woman.

You never stop learning, I guess. 😁

Quote : Origin of FEMINAZI blend of feminist and Naza First Known Use : 1989
blend of feminist and Nazi
First Known Use: 1989

That’s not really where the issue lies. You can't just call some George from a federal agency or the Department of Civil Rights a "feminazi" simply because their agenda includes a bullet point for "women's health care." If that national strategy happens to include support for single fathers—like helping them sort out legal status or chasing down child support from mothers—then there isn't even a conflict. But if she refuses to help a Single Parents Association or a group for abused fathers, then yeah, I'll be the first one here to label her a "feminazi."😬

@silentridge3

That isn't even the real problem (and nobody on the other media outlets was defending that, especially when it was actually explained), the only REAL PROBLEM is that at some point (maybe in the Politics section?), you and several other forum users started throwing that ugly little slur around like it was nothing. Stop the madness! Go ahead, try telling me, or anyone else on this board, that I'm some "chauvinistic Nazi." Just try it.🙂

BTW, here's a solution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazons

😍

silentridge3 said:I started this thread so we could together brainstorm a specific term. You know, that one phrase.

I’d really rather not go on a guessing game here, only to have the mods swoop in again to lock the thread and hand out penalties.

If you all happen to know what's strictly off-limits, maybe just tell me what's actually allowed.

Femizandrizam?

Why bother reinventing the wheel when the term already exists: misogyny. And it’s definitely unconstitutional—and honestly, that goes for misogyny too, especially when you're talking about high-ranking officials in the executive or legislative branches. It’s not like the European Court of Human Rights isn't busy overturning rulings like the ones you're mentioning. Once we're fully integrated into those international systems, we can expect even more corrections coming from the American courts.

silentridge3 said:Great. Since you clearly have so much to say about all this, I assume you’ll be offering me more than just the standard "Godwin's law" (which everyone brings up, even though it's actually a total misfire)...

Godwin is widely accepted today—unlike that unfortunate "feminacism" nonsense. Like I said, it's better to steer clear of all those Nazi analogies (and no, I didn't make that up; it's just how people communicate on internet forums). Besides, equating feminism with Nazism, while following heated debates over whether radical feminism can easily be labeled "feminacism," is still a stretch. That kind of thing isn't accepted anywhere. Just the other day, someone basically killed God in Bret Easton Ellis because he was being slightly too soft on certain issues, and honestly, they deserved it: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/node/134648

The whole issue is that you users on this forum have also started using that ugly little slur. Why is it so hard to grasp that forum users, by default (due to anonymity, regardless of gender), are better protected than public figures? In other words, if the only thing you did was call some George from the morning news "feminacistic" (and actually explained why), we wouldn't even be having this conversation. You can't really tell anyone to "go outside and tie your shoes on the left side of the road", let alone brand them with some Nazi label. What are we even talking about here?

..help in finding a suitable term.

Thanks in advance. I'm not looking for more answers regarding what I'm *not* allowed to say; I'm looking for an appropriate term that I *can* use. When I say "appropriate," I mean something short and conversational (a word or a two-word phrase), something versatile enough to handle different grammatical forms. And, of course, something that actually points toward the subject matter. Using the letter "đ" is definitely not going to cut it.

So:

How should one describe systemic actions (laws, regulations, media) or individual ones (a person, an association) aimed at humiliating and sexually discriminating against men?

Again: thanks in advance for the help.

Just invent something constructive, but please, leave those miserable Nazi analogies out of it.

silentridge3 said:That’s not really a phrase.

I can't be expected to type out that entire paragraph every single time.

Why is it acceptable to just use the word racism instead of

"...unconstitutional orders, regulations, and actions within the system (state agencies) aimed at racial inequality against Black people, alongside chauvinistic behavior from certain white individuals, white organizations, and 'so-called' groups toward Black people."

?

What would be the equivalent analogy (in my case) for phrases like "racist action," "a racist," "a racist decision," or "a racist law"?

Thanks in advance for a precise answer.

Everything here is crystal clear; you can go ahead and call a Taylor Swift by her actual name without it being labeled "feminism." Before that, though, we have neo-Nazism. Just as a general, non-personal observation: you simply can't talk to the users on this World Economic Forum like that. I am fully in favor of sanctions for anyone using that kind of language, especially when it's user-to-user. Broken Windows Theory, applied to basically every debate on this site, means they die instantly—it's best to steer clear of all those Nazi analogies.

Not that I enjoy agreeing with the administration, but it looks like we're getting snow again today. 😁

Honestly, nothing at all. They could have at least posted something on Reddit to give us a heads-up. 🤷 I mean, let’s be real here—we all know exactly which kids aren't getting a birthday party thrown for them. 😬 Honestly, I really stepped in it this time—it’s a massive oversight on my part not to remember an anniversary like this for Reddit.

John Palmer4 said:Even the moderator bonuses have been split up now, specifically for handling bans and deleting posts. 👍

By the way, I’ve noticed that posts are being deleted on this thread too. They were all perfectly on topic, just some harmless little commentary about the server tucked into a larger post. It really makes you wonder about the whole moderation process and whether any of these rules actually serve a purpose, though I suppose we’re all just sitting around waiting for someone to swoop in with that classic line, "well, the debate is over."

rezon@tor said:I honestly don't think we should even allow the suggestion that anything shady is going on behind the scenes in the moderator section.

We’re entering dangerous territory here. It's starting to feel like this whole "example" involving that user kiss me is being weaponized against everyone on Reddit, and frankly, it’s exhausting. Let's call it what it is: plain old intimidation of the users. Look, let's play hypothetical for a second—suppose I actually had proof that someone was using the moderator area to mock me, mess with my private info, or just generally run some dirty games (not that it hasn't happened before, and let's be real, it'll happen again regardless of what the admins do). Who exactly is going to stop me from taking that evidence and blowing the whistle to the FBI as part of a legitimate grievance? I'd love to see them try. 😬

I’ll say it again: having a concrete rule in place would make life a lot easier for us, but even if someone takes an issue to the FBI, nobody should have the authority to slap a user with a month-long ban. At most, you delete the thread and move the conversation to DMs with the admins to settle things. Like I said, wasting time on trivial stuff like internal bickering in the mod section is one thing—which, by the way, deserves a warning or maybe a nudge, but definitely not those month-long bans, certainly because we all know those get overturned within twenty-four hours anyway—but the real issue is that you've now equated minor drama with serious allegations of moderator abuse. It's unacceptable, and it's just not sustainable.

There hasn't been any movement whatsoever over on the Reddit administration sub, so I figured I’d check here to see if we might actually get some straight answers. Maybe.

I guess I’m just sitting here waiting for someone to actually say something worth responding to, because so far, this is about as exciting as watching paint dry in a basement. kaže:
The rule is strictly about the information itself. That means it applies to anyone who gets their hands on it, too. Nobody is allowed to go around sharing or posting anything, especially since the PDF isn't even public—it shouldn't be sitting out there in the open on the forum.

That’s just not true, and honestly, it isn’t my problem that you systematically ignore every single thread related to this issue. It really doesn't sit right with me, especially considering your role as an admin—not to mention that whole eleven-month stretch where you just completely looked the other way. So, I was just sitting here thinking about how much effort people put into trying to get free publicity for their private market research firms. It’s almost funny, really. You see these agencies constantly fishing for attention, hoping someone will just stumble upon them and offer up a massive shout-out without paying a dime. It’s a bit of a joke, honestly—trying to build a reputation on nothing but good vibes and sheer audacity., It’s been eleven full months now. So, I guess nobody here actually felt like stepping up to explain that shameless advertisement popping up on Reddit?

Let's get back to the main point here—and please, if you can manage it, try not to just ignore what I'm saying.

Christian Taylor3 said:It feels like we’re just spinning our wheels at this point. I guess they actually went through with it. Honestly, it’s not like there’s anything written anywhere on Reddit stating that Kiss Me wasn't allowed to do that, quite literally. I guess I’ll start writing. If only it were actually allowed and practiced around here. Honestly, if the FBI would just step in, sister, we might actually get somewhere—amen to that! Of course, everything would have to be sanctioned by Anderson and the current admin team first. But let’s be real: without a clearly defined rule in place, your whole argument is basically just spinning your wheels.

I’m asking again: where exactly is this rule that supposedly applies to regular users? And while you're at it, why don't you provide links to all those threads on the FBI's subreddits where people have actually posted concrete evidence of moderator abuse? Not one of them has actually served a month-long ban.Alright, that’s enough smart-aleck behavior for one day.

Can we please stop acting like this one situation is the new standard for everyone? Look, I’m all for agreeing that what kiss me did was totally out of line, but I don't think we should jump to the conclusion that every single user who brings up a legitimate grievance is going to get slapped with some draconian, life-altering ban. Let’s be real—that’s just not how things work here, and I'm pretty sure we can all be confident in that. We keep seeing these cases where users find out they’re being dragged through the mud, insulted, or even having their private info tossed around by the mod team. It happens way too often, and if I recall correctly, the last big mess involved that former moderator Habanero (which, by the way, belongs over on the FBI subreddit). Do those users deserve a month-long ban just for pointing out that the mods are abusing their power? Of course they don't. It would be great if someone could actually step in and fix these regulations, because honestly, it needs to happen. I think there might have been a typo in your message, or maybe you just hit enter too soon. If you were trying to start a conversation or ask me to rewrite something, go ahead and drop the full text whenever you're ready. I'm standing by. Make sure to emphasize in the FBI guidelines that users need to reach out to the admins via private message exclusively. Otherwise, how are they supposed to realize that these kinds of threads aren't allowed here, or that there’s a month-long ban waiting for them as a "reward"? 😵

This is actually a great idea for a thread. I’m extending the invitation to everyone else, too. It’ll be a blast, you should definitely jump in here. 👍

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=94219

That’s pretty gruesome. 😁

'The Iceman' is making its festival debut at this year's Mostra out of competition, and then it’s heading straight to TIFF.

Check out some fresh stills here: http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayli...ceman-20120731

Honestly, seeing Shannon and Liotta together on screen? That’s quite the pairing. 🙏

This thing actually looks like it could be a winner, assuming Ariel doesn't trip over his own feet: "The film comes from relatively inexperienced Israeli-born director Ariel Vroman, but that cast is promising, and there's a nice sense of period style coming across."

Laura Palmer25 said:Setting horror aside for a second, you really have to wonder what kind of absolute moron thinks it's a good idea to mess with Straw Dogs, Arthur, or Conan... I mean, hellooo? 😠

True, though honestly, you'd have to be a special kind of idiot to go poking around in Coen's 'Blood Simple', Carpenter's precinct 13, or Fincher's 'Fight Club'...

And yet, here we are, stuck in neutral. The whole topic was just framed the wrong way to begin with.