Posts by Nicholas King

Daniel Ward87 said:I wasn't saying the moderators have to follow strict rules like a broken record; I meant they should allow as much as possible while still sticking to the main purpose. They have some discretion there, and they usually work things out on the fly.

Sure, you're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make it the truth.

Absolutely. I mean, that would only be the case if I were offering my own personal "vision" or whatever—but instead, I am simply quoting official moderator statements found across these few threads and pointing out specific moderator actions taken regarding Advertisements.

Look, we all know that even the most "quoted" facts can be called into question if you look closely enough. It’s a reality of life—if those supposed facts start working against our interests, then well, I guess it’s time to start questioning how much truth they actually hold. 😬.

Daniel Ward87 said:Look, it’s a different ballgame whether you're looking for someone when you're already seeing someone or if you're flying solo. Not trying to be exclusionary here, but the US Forum is really geared toward people who aren't currently in a relationship and are either looking for one—or just aren't interested. — Jacob Wood9 😁If we can make it work, we should definitely let everyone else jump in with their own Advertisements too. Now it’s really up to the moderators to figure out how to roll that out. Personally, I’m all for it.


Look, I’m not trying to throw shade or imply anything. I was just pointing out the original idea behind the Advertisements here in the US and who they were actually meant for. It’s not set in stone—we can definitely pivot—but I think we should try to protect the core purpose of those posts. We really need to touch base with the moderators to figure out how to bring in other types of Advertisements without messing up what they were originally designed to do.

If the US Forum is indeed "primarily for those not in relationships but wanting to be", then there is absolutely no point in discussing the addition of "other types of Advertisements"—because, frankly, we already have far too many of them.

If that were actually the case—if the moderators truly maintained the "original spirit" of these ads—then anyone seeking nothing more than pen pals, casual chat, or anything else besides a committed relationship (and a massive crowd of people clearly emphasizes that they do not want a relationship) should be deleted immediately.

But obviously, that isn't what's happening; it’s quite clear the moderators have lost their way regarding their own "criteria," cowardly scrubbing anything that might be perceived as immoral or just plain tacky. I feel like I've quoted elementary examples of this inconsistency a thousand times already—whether it's declaring an ad "unquestionable" only to delete it later, dealing with married individuals posting—not even mentioning the whole "Euclid episode"—and most importantly, that utterly muddled explanation regarding whether an ad from a couple looking for a third would even be considered.

briskjackal5 said:"We get it," right? It's a totally valid way to judge intent when it comes to moderation.

Generally speaking—not even talking about this specific situation—posting can be harmful to the PDF, you know? Like, it can undermine actual discussions or just be super negative and argumentative without ever actually using explicit insults. Sure, maybe X said this sentence here, and Y said something similar that didn't technically break any rules, but those two things could be fundamentally different in vibe. You seem to keep coming back to these almost robotic, "if-then" type complaints about how mods are supposed to actually *know* what's going on. Well, they should know! They should be able to judge the situation—that's literally part of the job description. It’s not just about having an automated system that scrubs certain keywords.

So, I guess you could say that using moderator discretion is both logical and honestly pretty necessary for effective moderation.

-Steve

Pure nonsense.

Let them know, let them judge...

By all means, let them know and let them judge—but there actually has to be some semblance of a system involved. Identical situations need to receive identical judgments.

I’ve pointed out several instances where they completely lost the plot in situations that were essentially identical—and please, don't try to play games with me regarding "similar tones" versus "different meanings." We are talking about physical contact that lasted weeks, which would have dragged on for years if Nicole Ruiz hadn't brought it up; we're talking about a married man whose situation lasted four days, but would have stretched to 444 days if I hadn't intervened. It was also clearly demonstrated that the moderator "knew" a post was perfectly fine, only to have that exact same post deleted just two days later.

Everything you’re rambling about concerning subversive content or whatever other "horrible" posts—it honestly has absolutely nothing to do with the Advertisements being discussed here.

Sophia Thomas7 said:I haven't received a single answer to my question yet (which I already asked): why are sex Advertisements banned?

As far as I'm concerned, if someone gets hit for deleting a paid ad, then every single ad looking for sex should be getting wiped too.

Exactly.

To start with, absolutely every single Advertisement that includes the phrase "not looking for a relationship"—well, we all know what's actually being sought there; those whole routines about "just chatting" and "hanging out" are just selling someone else a load of crap!!!11!!eight!!!.

After that, you have every Advertisement that doesn't explicitly state "looking for a relationship"—because, let's be honest, we all know, if you didn't write that you're looking for a relationship, then you aren't actually looking for one; all that nonsense.

Once everything is cleaned up nicely like that, those two lonely ads that somehow survive all those "we all know" filters don't even need to be renewed—they'll basically stay perched at the top of the page forever anyway.

Sophia Thomas7 said:What exactly are you basing this "fact" on—that traffic to the US Forum would tank if they banned diverse profiles in ads? Most of the people posting there are using their main accounts for everything else anyway and just use a burner for the ads. So, honestly, what you said doesn't really hold water.

In dubio pro reo. That’s really all there is to it.

If there were some higher reasoning behind this—say, "we're panicking because Google might flag us as a porn site," or "we're worried about advertisers revolting," or something along those lines—there would be a way to let the average forum user know, in one form or another.

But the actual issue here is that the moderators insist on acting like their arbitrary decisions regarding what is "allowed" or "not allowed" constitute some sort of coherent policy for managing PDFs and threads. From where I’m sitting, this entire situation has perfectly demonstrated that when it comes to the "can/cannot" criteria, they are guided exclusively by their own personal values—which, frankly, isn't exactly a solid foundation for moderation. I mean, who actually cares about subjective sentences like "Personally, I am against this or that"? Not to mention that incredibly muddled attempt at formulating the rule: "if this were truly a serious Advertisement from someone living in a polygamous relationship/marriage, then we would decide how to handle it based on the written text and the implicit message it sends."...

Even when people are being foolish, they generally don't appreciate being treated like they're stupid. And this level of arbitrariness in moderating an Advertisement—without providing a single meaningful explanation as to why something can or cannot stay (or rather, what catastrophe would occur if a problematic 🙄 Advertisement wasn't deleted)—is precisely that: "we did it because we felt like it, so, what, a breakup? Is this a game of cat and mouse?"

Ashley Bishop4 said:Is it LJES or just plain old "Loves"?

So, how exactly did you jump to the conclusion that because Lonely Hearts post Advertisements on the US Forum, then everyone posting on the LJES Forum must be someone who just lives for LJES?
That makes zero sense. 🤷

Oh, please. 😁
It’s pretty obvious you didn't even bother reading the very first post in this thread. It clearly states there was no explicit solicitation for sex and absolutely no trolling going on. 👍

It seems like you don't quite grasp what the word "explicit" actually implies, or is that the issue?

Jacob Wood9 said:this one was deleted too

How yes no.

I suppose Plan B is surely about to kick in—you know, the whole routine about how moderators can't be online 24/7, how they’re just volunteers, and all that nonsense. It’s a complete distraction from the actual issue—which is that the Advertisement has been up for four days straight, yet today's duplicate was wiped out despite the author explicitly stating it was a repost—so, frankly, trying to argue that we're being selective with deletions is a losing battle. A day where someone finally just writes a simple sentence like, "Yeah, we messed up, it happens, let's move on"—after which absolutely nothing else would occur—is clearly still a long way off (not to mention that promised apology from that brave female moderator who vanished without a trace right after deleting the Advertisement she had previously declared perfectly fine, to say nothing of anything else).

It's much easier to spend days typing out how 2+2=5.

Jacob Wood9 said:it is entirely possible that

- what exactly is the tangible difference between the problematic post and an Advertisement where a married man is looking for "a woman who understands him"—an ad that has been sitting on the Classifieds for days now? Does the moderation team honestly believe a married man doesn't have options, or more specifically, do they think a married man isn't looking for sex?

well, no... I find myself in complete agreement with you on that point.

Honestly, if you just follow this one thread regarding the Advertisements, the conclusion is pretty obvious: before you can even attempt to agree with me, you first have to reach an agreement with yourself.

Jacob Wood9 said:Look, it’s possible that a specific ad might have slipped through the cracks due to a mistake or some sort of misjudgment, but if you're truly intent on posting these kinds of things, it might be more productive to reach out to the moderators for the romance and adult sections. Perhaps they could open up dedicated spaces where people can openly look for threesomes, group activities, physical intimacy, or whatever else is on their mind.

That argument might actually hold water—at least regarding the subsequent deletion of physical contact—if the moderator, who so bravely stepped up to explain the criteria for publishing (or not), hadn't explicitly declared an Advertisement non-problematic only for it to be quietly pulled later, all while boldly promising an apology if she were mistaken—if only she had actually fulfilled that public promise.

But that’s only one part of the story: we still have our married gentleman who continues to unashamedly and messily look for a woman "on the side" without prejudice 🙄; and it remains entirely unclear what specific rule, criterion, or whatever it is, makes his post acceptable while Nicole Ruiz's is not.

No matter how much "oh, I really messed up, oh man, look what I did, oh wow, did you see that..." humor you try to throw at this banal fact, it’s still going to stick out like a sore thumb and remain glaringly obvious.

Ashley Bishop4 said:If you're really that curious, it’s "something else."

Where exactly in a request for physical contact did you read that they were asking for sex? How on earth did you interpret "physical contact" as being synonymous with sex? If that's how you personally view it, fine... but for most people, physical contact isn't sex.

Also, where in Nicole Ruiz's Advertisement did you see anything about it being for Lonely Hearts? How did you conclude that a couple—a man and a woman—looking for a woman for companionship falls under the category of the Lonely Hearts PDF?

Once you answer these two questions—and please, no sarcasm and no using those same two tired excuses you always use. Just give me a direct answer, just as concise as my questions:

1) How is physical contact the same thing as sex?
2) How does an advertisement where a couple is looking for a woman for sex fall under Lonely Hearts?

Only then can we continue this conversation. Otherwise, I'm going to assume you posted this comment while being completely lost and scattered.

So, it's definitely "something else." 🙂

The sheer depth of your misunderstanding regarding my questions is actually quite impressive.

I am not the one who claimed that physical contact is identical to sex. For those viewers who joined our broadcast later on, here is a brief chronology of events:

- A girl posted an Advertisement stating she was looking for physical contact without a relationship;
- Nicole Ruiz posted an Advertisement where he and his partner were looking for a "woman/girl who would hang out with us. Age doesn't matter! The important thing is that she also cares about her appearance, is relaxed, and is eager for hanging out, partying, and playing games together..."
- The first ad was declared absolutely indisputable based on the moderator's words, "I'm ready to apologize if I was wrong";
- The second ad was deleted;
- After all the drama was kicked up, the first ad was also deleted (that "I'll apologize if I was wrong" bit turned out to be nothing but hot air)

So, I am not questioning whether physical contact is the same as sex; rather, I find it unclear what the criteria are by which seeking physical contact isn't considered seeking sex, yet seeking a "girl to hang out with" is—and more importantly, I don't get how someone's request for physical contact suddenly becomes "seeking sex" and gets deleted after several days of it being fine.

Your second question is equally submerged in a total failure to grasp what was read. Aside from the fact that you are operating under the assumption that you know exactly how the couple in the disputed ad is undeniably seeking sex (just as you know that the girl seeking physical contact outside of a relationship actually just wants casual hand-holding), you are overlooking the fact that I am viewing the deletion of the disputed ad within the context of why other ads weren't deleted—in other words, my question isn't "why is this seeking sex and why isn't it a Lonely Hearts ad?", but rather "why is this seeking sex and not a Lonely Hearts ad, while an ad from a married man looking for a woman without prejudice isn't seeking sex and is a Lonely Hearts ad?".

But, even if you start trying to explain to me how it's okay for a married man to be lonely, but a couple in a relationship isn't allowed to be lonely, the question of all questions remains: since when was a rule introduced on the Lonely Hearts section where only Lonely Hearts are allowed to post on any topic (and Advertisements are—I know, I'll shock you—just a very ordinary, standard topic)? Everything written in the introductory post of that section says "It is still open (topic, per LB) just because there are those who truly want to meet someone and they are allowed to do so here".

Here is a detailed explanation of how and why you haven't understood a single thing about my questions, along with detailed answers to yours—without the sarcasm or the evasive little jokes.

Only, I have no idea where you got the notion that I would want to continue this conversation with you at all? 😕

Jacob Wood9 said:It wasn't deleted for being discriminatory; honestly, based on the Advertisement, you aren't exactly a Lonely Heart—you seem to have quite a line forming.

I suppose there are plenty of websites out there for those kinds of things, so maybe just try looking there instead.

🙂

Rather than resorting to arrogance or these weak attempts at being witty, it would be far more productive—and frankly, more interesting—to hear actual answers to specific questions:

- The moderator explicitly stated right here that there was absolutely nothing objectionable about an Advertisement where a woman is quite literally seeking physical contact. Yet, following this entire ordeal, even that post was removed. Did the moderator change her mind after the fact, or did she simply lose track of her own logic, or perhaps something else entirely?

- What is the tangible difference between that "problematic" post and the one where a married man is looking for "a woman who understands him"—an ad that has been sitting on the Classifieds for days now? Does the moderation team honestly believe a married man doesn't have options—or, more importantly, do they think a married man isn't looking for sex?

Any attempt at a similarly witty response—like the quote above, or some timely sarcasm aimed at the same two tired jokes—will serve as nothing more than a sign of total confusion and utter helplessness.

steelbison14 said:I think the issue stems from me trying to insert an image from the web into a document about two days ago.

Maybe try running a System Restore to a point from three days ago?

shadowmoose92 said:Thanks a million guys...

😍😍😍😍😍

🧐

😢

steelbison14 said:I have a question regarding Word

Look, if Word behaves normally when you double-click it, then—I suppose—we aren't really talking about Word at all, but rather an issue with Windows itself.

What exactly do you see when you right-click the icon and select Properties? Specifically, is the "Change Icon" option grayed out or is it actually available? And more importantly, which specific program is actually launching when you double-click a Word document?

By the way—though it might seem obvious—it would be incredibly helpful in these types of queries to specify exactly which version of Word and which version of Windows you are running.

Sarah Sanders34 said:I personally opt for the term "hyper-feminism." It feels more accurate.

If we define "feminism" (and I realize that is a massive oversimplification here)—as the pursuit of equality—then I suppose "hyper-feminism" is simply a poor choice of words used to mask the exploitation of those very ideals. I mean, fighting for expanded (or perhaps even total 😬 dominance) for women just can't be done under the banner of equality. It’s a logical contradiction, really.

It seems to me this might just be a form of sham feminism—perhaps "pseudo-feminism"?

Dennis Jackson38 said:First off, let’s be clear: there is absolutely nothing illegal or against any US laws regarding a man looking for a woman to hang out with. 😁 The only real downside is the possibility that his Advertisement might just sit there without anyone responding.

Secondly, I was specifically addressing the issue of moderators displaying "negative personal biases toward certain types of relationships" while debating their own decisions. You have frequently pointed out yourself that such attitudes have no place in moderation, so I am quite puzzled by your sudden surprise at my observation. 😁

Thirdly, a couple seeking a third person to join them isn't any "nastier" than a girl looking for something casual in the grand scheme of things.

If the argument is about the specific WAY an Advertisement is phrased, then surely everyone should have the right to express their personal life choices through their own unique wording, shouldn't they?

Otherwise, are we going to start deleting posts from people whose worldviews don't align with those who prefer "long, romantic walks in the park" and "everything the youth enjoy"?

Of course it isn't—I’m not sure we’re even on the same page here, because my point was something else entirely: the distinction between saying "the two of us would like to hang out with a girl"—which is clearly a hunt for sex—and saying "I am married, I am looking for a woman to spend time with, someone without prejudices." That is a massive difference.

Dennis Jackson38 said:What truly troubles me—despite the genuine efforts of a colleague who is otherwise quite decent and frequently active over at PIK—is the specific way certain moderator decisions are phrased. It seems that certain individuals, particularly when Meadow is involved, tend to rely on expressions such as: "Personally, both my colleague's view and my own regarding open relationships are negative."

I have observed this pattern on several occasions now, and I have made it a point to speak up and suggest that this practice needs to cease immediately.

When an individual holds a moderator position, and as I have already pointed out to them directly on PIK, they really should refrain from constantly injecting their PERSONAL opinions and convictions into any discussion involving the making of moderator decisions.

Not only does this fall short of being "professional," but it fundamentally contradicts the very rules of the platform and the core essence of the moderator role itself.

As a regular user, especially when we are navigating delicate topics like discrimination or prejudice against someone's lifestyle choices, I find that I am simply NOT interested in the moderator's PERSONAL stances. Furthermore, I believe that any sort of personal intolerance toward matters of individual freedom should NEVER be voiced while commenting on moderator actions or any other official decisions.

When moderators are performing their duties, they are executing administrative functions and necessary corrections; they are not there to broadcast PERSONAL views, moral principles, or denials of certain lifestyles.

Of course, within a standard discussion thread where we act as fellow forum members, those opinions are fine, but certainly not within the context of PIK.

So, what exactly is this colleague's take on adultery?

Essentially, an Advertisement where a couple together was looking for a side piece got nuked—(and by the way, they also later deleted that other Advertisement seeking physical contact, even though the moderator explicitly stated she didn't see anything wrong with it 😬)—yet there’s still a perfectly valid thread sitting right there where a married man is scouting for a girl.

Now, I suppose we’re all meant to just "assume" that this married guy is just looking for someone to play Sudoku with (and definitely not—eek!—sex), or maybe it's perfectly fine if only one half of a couple seeks out a partner, but heaven forbid they both do it together.

shadowmoose92 said:Double-clicking just prints it out, obviously...

"> Start - Control Panel - folder Options - file Types and scroll down to ..doc. What's it say. Is there an advanced or restore button (it says one or the other) on the dialog. If Restore click it then click Advanced (else just click Advanced). **open should be in Bold**, if not select it and press set default."

I suspect this advice is meant for Windows XP.

You don't actually need a Macro—not really—much like how you don't need any of those "turnkey" solutions that leave you completely unable to make even the smallest tweak or upgrade down the road.

Jack Hayes said:let's say you have a date in cell B1, and then starting from B3... if you're trying to calculate seniority in months, just put this formula in cell B3: =A3+MONTH($B$1) and then drag it down to the end of your list.

Aside from the fact that you don't actually need to type the date into a cell—you could just call it using TODAY()—this particular formula is going to cause a massive headache once we hit the new year. When the month rolls over from 12 back to 1, it’ll basically strip 11 months of seniority away from every single employee on your sheet. That's obviously not what you want.

Depending on how your HR department specifically defines a "full month" for seniority purposes, you might find that the formula =DATEDIF(A3, TODAY(), "M") works much better.

dustyranger64 said:this is nothing more than a standard, textbook provocation from an Atheist.

I’ve always been somewhat clumsy when it comes to applying that whole "we all know what they actually meant by that" logic—so I won't sit here and speculate about any sort of hidden agenda lurking behind this particular post—though, I suppose a little bit of linguistic forensics :lastan: would probably allow one to conclude quite a bit with a high degree of certainty 😬.

However, as it stands, the post isn't really a provocation at all; if anything, it's more of an epochal forum suicide that atheists should actually applaud. You see, the premise—that "it is only my fear of God that keeps me from torturing and killing"—doesn't just offend atheists; it actually places them on a higher pedestal than the author himself—given that atheists don't kill or torture despite having no fear of God to stop them (and, I suppose, I shouldn't need some silly disclaimer to clarify that I am not claiming that no atheist has ever killed or tortured anyone).

What remains as an undeniable fact is that a topic framed this way has absolutely nothing to do with Religion.

swiftbear86 said:Just finishing up middle school music programs was enough to qualify.
Completing a formal music conservatory program (not just a weekend workshop) is a real achievement. Think about it: classes meet four times a week, you’ve got theory exams, and you have to pass practical performance tests every single year. As for the cost—in New York City, you're looking at about $40 a month for music school. Honestly, most families spend way more than that on stuff like dining out or entertainment, so saying this is only available to the "elite" just isn't true.

Here is the old (but still relevant) set of guidelines:

Well, if we're being strictly accurate, completing just four out of the six grades in elementary music school would have been plenty.