Posts by wiredviper

Kevin Morris12 said:I wouldn't dream of stepping foot into those Facebook groups about dwarfs—not after seeing the arguments you've dragged into them.

Since I was penalized for using that word—"dwarf"—instead of opting for the preferred, sanitized "person with dwarfism," I decided to point out the obvious: the term isn't inherently offensive, unless you happen to be someone terrified of the condition itself.

I provided my Facebook link for that very purpose—only for the whole thing, link and post included, to vanish. Are you going to delete it and then actually make it count?
Here’s a link you didn't ask for—and frankly, nobody is forcing you to click it.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=111740361521

Thanks for the response, hollowtrucker77.

mellowraven22 said:Kevin Morris12’s explanation seems perfectly reasonable to me.

It’s completely irrational to ban legal, widely accepted words found in any standard dictionary—all because of some manufactured sense of morality or basic misunderstanding. Why let performative outrage dictate language?
Perhaps "person with visual impairment" would be more appropriate than "blind person"?
It’s laughable—but then again, that’s just the nature of an online forum.

It’s actually happening. 😉

Since you already reached out via PM and gave me your answer, I’m wondering—is that the official policy or just your personal take?

I want to know if the forum's stance is actually to prohibit the use of standard terms found in medical dictionaries, even when they aren't being used as insults?

Why is the term "dwarf" considered an insult on this forum?
If the word is recognized in medical terminology to describe a specific condition, why is it prohibited here?

I posed this question in a specific thread and was immediately sent a PM telling me not to discuss it.
Can I get a public explanation?

http://onlinerjecnik.com/rjecnik/medicinski/nanosomi

http://www.mojezdravlje.net/Registar.../nanosomi.aspx

Nicholas King said:Did I ever actually ask for your take on this? 😁

Irrelevant. I brought them up because I wanted to express my view—whether you were part of the conversation or not.
By the way, you’re clearly just trolling and trying to steer this toward a flame war so I—the "newbie"—get flagged, while you pull the classic old-timer move of dodging any actual consequences.
And honestly? I have zero interest in debating whether someone will speak up just because you mentioned them or stay silent if you don't. It's exhausting. 😛
Whatever. I'm out. 😁

It’s a good thing hollowtrucker77 pointed out the trap. 🙂

Nicholas King said:Just like several of my other impressions—which I’m sure you’ll find equally flawed—this one is completely off the mark.

I’ll leave you to decide whether you believe me or not—relying on a repetitive loop of the same tired arguments would be beneath us both.

Fair enough. My impression comes from watching you constantly hovering around the complaint threads—replying to people, offering suggestions, and playing the advisor. Is that really what you're doing?
If you’ve been invited, the logical move is either to accept or stay out of it entirely—I don't know, just a thought. 😛

My take on this isn't just some baseless assumption—it's a matter of fact. If you actually bother to look at the thread gentlepuma20 linked and check what velvettrucker52 wrote about forum etiquette, the truth becomes pretty obvious.
Take a look at how many people—and exactly how many posts they’ve logged—are breaking which rules, then see if they actually faced any sanctions or if it’s all just talk.

Unless people here have decided that your personal feelings carry more weight than actual, verifiable facts—which seems to be the case. 😁

Nicholas King said:"That second option" requires significant moderator involvement. As far as I can tell, Adobe currently only has three modes in theory. 🙂

The situation at the FBI seems somewhat unique: you have a relatively small "core staff," occasional guests from other Adobe threads, and the periodic group visits from newcomers—who, predictably, have a knack for starting their own personal drama.

To make matters worse, there are these senseless protests about some supposed "old-timer" privilege.

In this specific instance, the author made it crystal clear that everything was settled and the thread should be locked. Besides, the topic is essentially "spent."

There aren't any mods over there. Unless by "mod," you mean people who just wipe the windows and lock the doors.

It’s true that the permanent residents of this mausoleum host occasional guests and passing groups, while the old-timers continue with their usual stances, repackaging them to fit the theme.

Calling this crew a "museum collection": lol

In this particular case, the author explicitly stated that the matter was closed and the thread needed to be locked, even thanking a few people for their input earlier. To which velvettrucker52 replied that the author doesn't hold exclusive rights to the subject—once a topic is posted on Reddit, it belongs to everyone. Everyone participates regardless of who started it. I can find velvettrucker52's post if necessary.

That is the part I find baffling—it perfectly illustrates the double standards.
Essentially, when the old-timers talk to one another, whether they are flattering or criticizing each other on someone else's thread, it's all fine. But if a newcomer tries to assimilate? That’s when the deletions, warnings, and locks come flying.

I follow the forum even if I don't participate much, but I felt compelled to react to this.
I can't shake the impression that someone is just itching to moderate over there. So, if you actually get appointed, there's your opinion—or "constructive criticism," if you prefer. 🙂

Jose White18 said:If you can't keep up with all that, maybe it's better if you don't try at all.

Fine

How are you supposed to stay calm when the goalposts move every single time? It’s hard to take anything seriously when they tell you one thing, then flip the script and hand out a penalty the moment you actually follow the rules.
I’m not just talking about this specific thread, either—I mean, how are you even meant to participate on a platform like Reddit at all?

But look, the premise here isn't just about the original poster—it’s about everyone else jumping in, searching through the threads, and actually talking to one another, regardless of who kicked things off.
Can we get some clarity here? Are we allowed to interact with each other, or is this strictly direct communication only? Am I permitted to reply to existing posts within a thread, or am I restricted to only addressing the OP? And can we actually have a conversation without someone immediately locking the thread and handing out bans?

Exactly—velvettrucker52 is a total buzzkill. It’s just pointless 👎