Posts by Nicholas King

mellowraven22 said:But it wasn't even banned.

The thing is, nasty stuff written in holy books is still nasty stuff, and it should be subject to consequences just like anything else.

It’s a bit awkward—if you can even call it that—to try and hold a debate with someone whose username is purple and who carries a nearly identical quote in their own signature. 😁 (By the way, you misspelled "certain" in your post.)

However, unlike you, ego includes the addition "declared Muslim" in their signature, which—as I mentioned before, and I realize this is impossible to prove—is offensive insofar as it (I guess) suggests, "See? This is how a Muslim perceives things."

Quote : for the third time: sure, one could always just give a little smirk (something like this: 😁) and say, "Oh, noooo, please, you're just letting your dirty imagination run wild, noooo"—but honestly, what is the point? Why does it matter so much in that signature that Mirza is a "declared Muslim"?

Furthermore, the whole situation becomes even more awkward when a moderator starts dealing with these petty little jabs.

Finally, besides citing verses from the Quran in your signature, there is also an added comment that serves as a mockery of Shady—that last sentence (regardless of how much we stay silent about it) clearly implies, "Just look at what Shady doesn't consider to be violence."

Roger Barrett2 said:If that’s what the Bible actually teaches, then we aren't talking about an insult; we're just stating a religious position or doctrine. Since I haven't spent much time studying the Bible myself, I wouldn't be in any position to judge whether something is offensive or just a matter of faith.

I am firmly convinced that the whole reason they chose to put that specific quote in their signature is because they want to spread the teachings of the Quran.

No matter how much we try to play dumb or act like we don't see what's happening, quoting someone else's words in a signature—well, obviously not *every* single quote—is perhaps the most unsubstantiated way to mock someone.

Jessica Cox2 said:But wait, didn't "Jadranka Kosor" actually take over the premiership legally??
And when exactly did George W. Bush say that??
Sure, the national finances are "under control"—right up until the moment we go bankrupt.
As for Eric Adams, he works for the little guy just as much as he works for the big shots.

If everything you listed were actually true, we'd be seeing early elections right now, and those people would have been held accountable... by being kicked out of their positions (Prime Minister, Cabinet members, etc.).

Setting everything else aside, I suppose there's a rather foolish little joke worth mentioning: Mark and Marina are skydiving, but their parachute fails to deploy. As they plummet, Marina starts to absolutely lose it, panicking wildly. Mark—trying his best to be the calm one, I guess—tries to soothe her by saying, "Look, just look how far we are from the ground, don't panic." Then, when they are barely two or three feet from hitting the dirt, he looks at her and says, "Seriously, stop panicking—who actually dies from falling two feet?"

Keith Jackson3 said:—or if you're working with a table, just select all, hit copy, then go to Paste Special -> Values...

Well, there are five distinct points there... except the guy isn't even asking the question being posed. 🙂

First off, take that Microsoft Office Word document content and paste it directly into Column A of an Excel spreadsheet. Assuming everything is laid out exactly how you described, your names should fall into rows 1, 4, 7, 10, and so on; addresses would be in 2, 5, 8, 11; and the phone numbers/emails would land in 3, 6, 9, 12. It’s a pattern, I suppose.

It's just a few steps, really.

1. To start things off, go into cells E1, F1, and G1 and enter these formulas respectively:

=INDIRECT(ADDRESS(4*ROW()-3;1))
=INDIRECT(ADDRESS(4*ROW()-2;1))
=INDIRECT(ADDRESS(4*ROW()-1;1))

Then, just drag those formulas down as far as necessary to cover the entire range of your data.

2. Highlight columns E, F, and G, click Copy, move over to cell J1, and select Paste Special -> Values. This converts those formulas into actual static data.

3. All that's left is splitting the phone number from the email address: highlight column L, head to the Data tab, select Text to Columns, choose Delimited, pick Space, and hit Finish (this assumes, of course, that there is a space separating the two).

That should do the trick. Once you're done, you can just copy these columns wherever they need to go—or, if you want to keep things clean, delete all the columns to the left since they aren't needed anymore.

Lisa Hernandez3 said:An "ideal" forum isn't actually that far off—some users are already "practicing" their writing and debating styles by adopting different genders or other (imaginary) traits. And it's true that questioning why it might be a problem is somewhat moot, since it really shouldn't matter; there are very few instances where not knowing someone's gender becomes a practical hurdle. Dating, if we're even talking about that, operates on entirely different principles and concepts anyway—it’s built on things much deeper than a quick exchange of posts or a specific gender identity. The only reason I think we should perhaps give this some thought is to account for younger users—if they make up the bulk of the community and feel they need that sense of identification, then maybe it makes sense for them.

So, what are we doing here? Are we really going to embrace this just so the kids can have their little identity markers and post all those obnoxious "awww," "kisses," and "mwah" comments, along with the endless likes and social media nonsense? It basically implies we’ll have to ban anyone who actually knows how to write properly—just so they don't end up getting banned themselves—so, fine, I guess I'm jumping on the winning side immediately. 🙂

Lisa Hernandez3 said:Personally, I find this whole thing a bit unnecessary—almost childish, if I'm being honest. It might fly on a dating app, but for an online forum? It feels out of place. Everything we can see right now—the avatar, location, signature—that all makes sense because it helps a user craft their persona. But making gender a primary identifier next to every post... it just feels like a categorization that has nothing to do with the actual discussions. Any confusion that arises is rare and, frankly, pretty irrelevant. In my experience, people occasionally misgender me, and I don't even bother reacting—it actually appeals to my more masculine side, I guess. When I'm talking to someone whose gender I'm unsure of (which doesn't happen much since I've been reading most of you long enough to know), I either use gender-neutral language or just check their profile. Highlighting gender so explicitly sends the message that it's a defining trait, implying that our writing somehow carries a specific gendered dimension—which isn't necessarily true. If they actually implement this, I'll probably be the first one to strip the gender from my own profile or just switch it to male. 😍

Does this forum even serve any other purpose whatsoever? I mean, seriously—is there actually any other point to being here? 😲😲😲

Off-topic: I honestly think that’s all quite unnecessary—in fact, if we were living in some sort of "idealized forum," even the usernames wouldn't matter at all. It should only be about the substance of what was said, rather than who exactly uttered it—though, I suppose, that would effectively strip away the whole "social networking" aspect of the site... which, as we all know, is the only reason this forum exists in the first place. 😁However, I’m not about to waste my breath playing the "just tell me why it would be a problem" game—because if we’re actually following that line of reasoning, then why wouldn't any other data from the Shakespearean list be an issue either?

Jacob Foster11 said:I agree, that would be useful. I always have to click on a profile when I'm unsure. This would definitely make identifying genders easier. 👍

It doesn't need to be complicated. Just add symbols like: ♀ ♂

Since I’m fairly certain you aren't out here sending unsolicited anatomical photos via PM—and honestly, I suspect people who do that tend to run into some pretty significant misunderstandings by assuming the wrong gender anyway—I can't really imagine any discussion topic or scenario where knowing your interlocutor's gender would actually matter.

Amanda Murphy26 said:I spend most of my time scrolling through the news sites and the Men's Club, and I’ve noticed there are a ton of posters where you can't tell if they're even male or female just by looking at their handle. It’s kind of a pain, honestly. I’ll be halfway through some massive wall of text, totally invested, and then I realize at the very end that I was actually reading some woman ramble on. Maybe they should just put their gender right under their username or something.

Honestly, I think this proposal doesn't go nearly far enough—it’s just not radical enough.

I honestly think women should be banned from posting altogether. If they really have something to say, maybe they can go run their mouths over at the Chicken Coop instead of cluttering up our forum space.

Then it follows that—if I’m being perfectly honest—everything just falls apart from there. It’s almost predictable at this point, isn't it? I suppose one could argue there might be a way to mitigate the fallout, but let's be realistic—it's unlikely. It really feels like we're just watching a slow-motion train wreck unfold, where every single decision made by the higher-ups only serves to complicate an already messy situation. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but then again, maybe I'm just the only one actually paying attention to the patterns here. It's all quite exhausting, really. I’m struggling. I was just sitting here, wading through this massive, rambling wall of text...

Is it just me, or are these massive walls of text getting a bit ridiculous? I mean, there isn't even a single photo to break things up—honestly, I’d rather be out weeding the garden in the middle of July than sitting here wading through these endless ramblings. Personally, I much prefer those short, sweet posts that actually get to the point. You know, the simple ones. Just a quick "Signed," an "Aww," or a little "Sending love to everyone." Those are the only ones worth reading.

Excuse me? Are you kidding me right now? You’re actually serious? Because if you are—and I suspect you might be—then you're the one who started this whole mess in the first place. 😕

slyrider20 said:I just don't get it—if I delete the Header in the first section, it disappears from the second one too. What's even the point of creating two separate sections if they act like one? Where did I go wrong here?

By default, the second section has the "same as previous" option enabled. Unless you manually uncheck that, both headers are going to behave identically.

The workflow should be:

- Insert Section break
- Uncheck "same as previous" in the second section
- Set your headers for the first and second sections individually

Walter Jackson48 said:2. I go to Insert, then select Page break, followed by Next page,

It’s probably Insert Section break.

cosmicskipper39 said:Imagine if people on a music forum—specifically those who actually play guitar or drums—just flat-out refused to talk to anyone who doesn't play, viewing them as nothing more than an obnoxious nuisance polluting the threads with mindless comments because they don't even know how many strings are on a guitar or anything of the sort.

That’s a pretty clever musical analogy—but, I have to say, it’s completely misapplied here.

It would be much more accurate to imagine an orchestra where the people who can't play a single note are standing there, stone-faced, trying to lecture the actual musicians that technical skill doesn't matter at all and that the only thing that counts is just making noise.

BTW, you're being incredibly malicious by twisting my words—nobody ever called anyone "an obnoxious nuisance polluting the threads with mindless comments." All I said was that people have every right to prefer certain company when they're looking for someone to jam with. ☕

Jose Barrett said:What is even your problem!!??

How dare you go around calling potentially illiterate people "idiots"!?

I don't know if there is a person involved—or who it might be—who actually has a problem here, but your struggle to comprehend what was actually written is... well, it's pretty obvious.

Calling a specific group of people "illiterate idiots" doesn't mean you're labeling every "potentially illiterate" (sic!) person an idiot. If I were to say, "Marina, you are a stupid cow," I haven't just declared every cow on the planet to be stupid. Quite the opposite—maybe tomorrow I'll turn around and say, "Jacqueline, you are one smart cow."

cosmicskipper39 said:You kind of reminded me of Oscar Wilde...

Those words from Wilde are actually quite brilliant—I suppose you could say he really hit the nail on the head here. He captured the essence perfectly.

Personally, I think that besides being just another sign of general personal neglect, illiteracy is also fundamentally ugly.

Matthew Grant9 said:I think there might have been a slight misunderstanding here.
😬
My thanks were coming from a place of genuine sincerity.
😍

And I promise you, they weren't even remotely in sync with the "holy world of political correctness."

Well, that’s easy enough to say—but honestly, I still don't think we're on the same page. Me and you, specifically. 😕

Anyway, moving away from that—off-topic question: does being overly tolerant toward someone actually end up killing you? 😁

Matthew Grant9 said:Well... but hey, the poll makes it crystal clear what the majority is thinking.
It’s pretty easy to conclude from there that the "likers" are just prone to trolling and totally selling their souls for clout. 🙂😉

Thank you ever so much for being so incredibly subtle in pointing out that the "most popular" person on the forum would be a guy rather than a girl! 😳
I truly believe that if I, as a woman, had written something like that, the backlash and stone-throwing would have started immediately.
Hope everyone is doing wonderful!🙂

Well, obviously. If we’re talking about who the most beloved member of this Forum would be, it would simply have to be a regular Forum user. As for the ladies—well, I suppose one of them might just happen to be the most popular female poster around here. Beyond that, though, how on earth am I supposed to know what kind of monthly treat our favorite lady would choose to grace us all with? 😁

It’s honestly an exhausting amount of work when you start counting every single living soul and inanimate object being sacrificed at the altar of the world of political correctness. 🙂

feraltrucker5 said:I’m not really feeling it.

Well, great, now you've gone and trashed his reputation. 🙂

The whole debate is still mostly circling around the "implementation" side of things, but honestly, I still can't wrap my head around what the point would even be. I mean, it seems highly questionable to me that—in such a scenario—our most beloved forum regular would be treating himself to some young maiden every single month; if nothing else, just try finding a young maiden on an online forum... 😁

There really are only two ways to look at this: either they think people are completely incompetent and need to have it spelled out for them—like, "hey, this guy is interesting, you should read him"—which strikes me as utterly ridiculous, since you can easily sort through who's worth your time and who isn't within two days—or perhaps someone just needs a little ego boost, something along the lines of, "Hey babe, listen, my rating on Forum.hr is thirty-two and a half, okay? You hear me?" 🙂

Amy Nelson34 said:Looking through the posts on this forum, I keep running into so many grammatical errors that they’re practically an assault on the senses.

But why dwell on that?

You can find just as many tedious, witless, and utterly nonsensical posts on here—shouldn't someone be tasked with cleaning those up too? Honestly, maybe we should just pick a group of 10 or 20 people to act as editors, where everyone else sends them a quick summary of what they want to say, and then these selected individuals actually draft the posts properly.

I’m just sharing my irritation with the spelling mistakes, the bad grammar, and the general lack of coherent thought. If I were the king of the universe, I’d issue fines for all of it—but I suppose that’s all just part of the unique personality of the users here (much like the varying levels of humor and interest).

In that spirit, I think it would be more than enough if the moderators simply kept an eye on the thread titles. But that feels like a pipe dream when I see how our dear moderator "corrects" (and she does it "first off!" 🤣) the spelling of a user who’s already been banned. 😁

Laura Jackson51 said:It would be quite useful if they integrated this as a minor addition to the posts...

Just a simple question here: but why exactly??? 😕

Nicholas King said:That still doesn't mean you were the one who posted it.

Hannah Davis18 said:Obviously, I didn't post it.

I suppose you didn't quite grasp my point—not that it matters much now. I'm giving up on this.

Hannah Davis18 said:Of course it’s significant—mostly because I actually deleted the thread myself.

That still doesn't prove that you were the one who originally posted it.

And just to be clear, my question about the debate wasn't directed at you—my apologies if there was some sort of misunderstanding there.