Posts by Nicholas King

Hannah Davis18 said:When? I suppose I should probably start by saying that my thoughts on this matter have been brewing for quite some time—and frankly, they aren't particularly pleasant. It seems we’ve reached a point where the sheer lack of consistency in how these policies are being applied is becoming impossible to ignore. I mean, if we look at the recent data coming out of Washington, it’s almost laughable how much red tape is being generated just to satisfy a few bureaucratic whims. It isn't just about the inefficiency, though—that's a given—it's more about the underlying principle of the thing. Or rather, the complete absence of one. One might think that after all the debates we've had in the Senate regarding oversight, we would see some semblance of actual progress, but instead, we just get more layers of complexity. It’s exhausting, really. I guess some people find comfort in the chaos, but for those of us actually trying to navigate the system, it feels like running a marathon through knee-deep mud. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I don't see it any other way. So, you’re the one starting all these threads... I suppose that’s one way to go about it.

A truly iconic way to put it.

Whatever happened to that much-anticipated debate regarding the moderators and the moderation team? I mean, it was all being talked about, but now... nothing. Silence. Just total radio silence. 🙂

steelskipper5 said:Given how many users we have here, do you honestly think this could happen more than once? 😁

And considering how many other forums are out there—do you really believe people would just sit around waiting for ages before they decide to settle down somewhere else? 🙂div>

vividfalcon14 said:And they've even got a proxy... 😬

The intersection of two specific variables—"I want to be as tedious on this forum as a stomach flu" and "I actually know how to set up my own proxy"—provides just enough of a profile to realize we shouldn't bother trying to silence the idiots who had their parents buy them a computer yesterday, only for the kid to immediately start trolling everyone. 🙂

feraltrucker5 said:Does anyone actually have constructive suggestions to improve LJS, or are we just going to sit here and chat? 😁

A constructive suggestion: perhaps a moderator could actually reach out when they delete a meaningful thread—just to explain why, and how on earth that topic wasn't worthy of being on LJS, or frankly, any other forum on the web. I don't even want to get into a full-blown roasting session by providing a comparative analysis of the topics that *actually* deserve space here. 🙂 Otherwise, it’s hard to expect anyone to bother starting a substantive discussion, let alone writing anything more than a single sentence on LJS.

The moderators can't open threads just because you want them to; you have to start them yourselves, and then the moderators will monitor them to ensure the quality of the discussion remains appropriate.

Personally, it would be enough if the moderators simply stopped shutting down the exact types of threads I want to start. As for how much—or how little—the moderators actually monitor things, I feel I’ve been sufficiently convinced by the handling of this specific thread.

Quote:

steelskipper5 says: LJS has basically just devolved into endless discussions about sex, sex, and more sex

Conversation??? Where? Where? WHERE???? 😲

😁

slywolf45 said:Come on, Nicholas King—why don't you go ahead and start a proper thread filled with plenty of LJS or Erotica?🙂

It’s just not that hard, honestly—not by a long shot.

Someone else went ahead and opened some "lovely thread packed with plenty of LJ"—and now, for absolutely no discernible reason, the whole thing has been nuked. I mean, at least now we finally get a clear look at which moderators are actually running the show around here. They aren't. They went ahead and deleted the thread. Just like that. Gone. I guess they figured it was easier to just wipe the whole thing out than actually deal with whatever was happening in there—which, frankly, is just typical behavior from the mods lately. It’s honestly frustrating how quickly things get scrubbed when the conversation starts getting a little too real or too messy for their liking. Total joke. 😁 Anyone who actually thinks they know what they're talking about—honestly, they should probably just grab a bag of snacks, head out to the Rockies, and go meditate in the wilderness for a solid month. If we don't, I fear that LJS is destined to become nothing more than a permanent sanctuary for those endless, repetitive threads about "age-gap hookups," "shaved preferences," or whatever specific political or professional fetishes people want to project onto their kinks. It’ll just be a non-stop cycle of "do you prefer this or that?" and those ridiculous, mathematically impossible claims about how many times someone can go at it without a break. It’s exhausting, really.

That’s—well, that is more or less what I am attempting to convey.

I’m honestly suggesting we just drop the "LJ" from Erotica once and for all. And, if we’re being totally honest—though I won't jump straight to extremes just yet—that "E" doesn't really serve much of a purpose either. 🙂

If my memory serves me right—and it usually does—that thread "I Like Her Just Because She Likes Me" (or something to that effect; who can actually keep track of these titles?) was just nuked. It wasn't even a bad thread; it had a clear direction, some decent replies, and zero trolling, spam, or mindless chatter. But instead of just moving it to a more appropriate sub-forum, they just deleted it entirely.

So, I have a simple question for our ruthless moderator: by what logic is that specific topic considered too "off-topic" or uninteresting compared to threads like "Feeling Chilled After a Trip to the Coast," "Can Friendship Exist After Love," or any of those other "non-sexual" discussions?

(I wouldn't even be typing this out if I hadn't already started drafting a reply to 🙂 anyway).

Justin Martin39 said:Perhaps—just perhaps—someone finally decided to address this ongoing headache and actually developed some sort of software to fix it. I mean, it’s about time, isn't it? 🙂

If you truly believe that this is just some trivial little "piece of software"—if you honestly think it’s just a minor bit of code that anyone could whip up—then maybe you should just take five minutes out of your day and build it yourself. Go ahead. I guess it shouldn't be that hard for someone with such high standards, right?

Do you really think a little bit of "software" is going to be enough to make people realize they need to stick to being "muscle"—not some butchered version like "muscl" or "mussle"? I mean, honestly—it’s almost laughable. Maybe there's a chance, but I highly doubt it. It feels like we're constantly fighting an uphill battle against basic competence, and even with all this digital hand-holding, people still seem to trip over the simplest things. I guess we can hope, but I'm not holding my breath.

I suspect—though I can't say for certain—that utilizing a decent spell-checker might actually help you manually overhaul a significant portion of that mess relatively quickly, even if it isn't some sort of automatic fix.

Eric Collins5 said:In other words, just head over to the Islamic forum...

Are you actually trying to suggest that this is a "Catholic forum"? 😕

Aaron Gomez3 said:Is that software printing labels for CDs, or does it print directly onto them?

Honestly, using CD labels is just pure evil.

Amy Rivera66 said:HELP!! This is urgent!

Maybe the fix is this:

Format -> Paragraph -> Set right indent to 0.

Matthew Anderson4 said:You could just say I’m eloquent—which would certainly save you a whole lot of ☕typing effort,
I suppose.

If you asked me—and believe me, you probably would—that’s exactly what you’d tell me. Yeah.

BTW, cheapskate.

Matthew Anderson4 said:Especially during those moments when someone backs you into a corner and you just can't turn the tide in your favor some other way

That is certainly some unusual—one might even say rather dramatic🙂 military terminology being used to describe a standard forum exchange.

Brenda Palmer7 said:Well, I guess you just can't expect much from certain people. 😁

That’s really the whole point here—in my humble opinion—and if someone decides to revive some ancient, dead thread just to post something incredibly mindless like "I agree! 👍" without any actual reasoning, then maybe... I don't know... perhaps treating them like an ecological nuisance through immediate euthanasia is just a necessary step for the environment.

Steven Clark2 said:I don't think there’s any real need to revive old threads just for the sake of making non-constructive posts or whatever—but if someone actually brings something constructive or innovative to the table, then I'd say that's actually quite desirable.

In my view, this entire debate is, frankly, a non-issue.

If there happens to be a case—though I highly doubt it—where someone "revived" a meaningful old thread and ended up getting sanctioned, well, that can easily be handled over at the PŽK. On the other hand, you really shouldn't compare "thematic" subforums, like the one for Movies (where certain topics are basically "eternal"), to "lifestyle" subforums like LJES, US, or ŽuD.

Furthermore, why would we technically prevent foolish forum users from demonstrating their sheer stupidity? 😁 I mean, there isn't really any other way to describe this overwhelming, desperate need for people to show off their supposed empathy and express their ability to sympathize.

167,000 results. 😁

You've got a bigger search engine (Google) than I do. 😢

redmarlin3 said:...and it honestly remains a complete mystery why—though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised given how things usually go—what actually happened. Exactly. It’ll just drive people to—if they even bother to Google that kind of thing (?!), which I doubt—to come crawling into this thread, quote the original post, and type out some half-hearted "My condolences!!11one."

Well, here we go. This is where I find myself now.

So, you basically just give her the finger—though, I suppose if I were to explain it properly when she asks—you essentially just... well, you show her exactly where she can shove it.Could you please explain—and I really mean walk me through the process here—exactly what you are typing into Google to track down that specific thread from 2006? You know, the one titled "I'm sad," where she talks about her friend passing away....and honestly, who knows what kind of limbs she's actually talking about? 😁

People come to this forum for all sorts of reasons—it’s certainly not a monolith. It seems to me, though—and I might be wrong here—that you tend to focus exclusively on what you consider "rational" motivations... whereas, in reality, the world is absolutely teeming with hordes of people who are nothing if not completely irrational.

I honestly believe that this inflated number of posts—including that "condolence post" you’re bringing up—is really just a perfect storm of loneliness, a generally messed-up life situation, a touch of that "Mark Chapman syndrome," and a very specific, almost obsessive fascination with leaving some kind of digital footprint behind.

I suppose we could dive into this in a broad sense, but honestly, it’s probably not the right venue for it—and besides, I’d rather not get caught up in any unnecessary drama. Here we go again—yet another one. (to be serious).

redmarlin3 said:Please, just walk me through it—what on earth exactly are you searching for on Google to dig up a thread from 2006 titled "I'm sad" about a friend passing away?

"My friend died." That’s 105,000 results, second link.

granitetrucker682 said:Good grief, for the love of everything holy... 🙏🙏🙏🙏😕

What exactly was that broken formula you were trying to build after digging through the help files for the IF function? Just copy and paste it right here—then maybe we can actually figure out where the logic is falling apart.

wanderingmoose59 said:Actually, I could use some help figuring out these specific rounding rules—for example:

484.54 down to 480
487.11 up to 490
484.99 down to 480
485.01 up to 490

😕😕😕

I suppose I can only state this one more time:

=ROUND(A1,-1) should perform exactly what you need for the value sitting in cell A1.

Walter Jackson48 said:If you want to, say, round 2.7 up to 3, you should use the formula: =ROUNDUP(2.7,0)—well, actually, if you want to round 2.1 down to 2, you’d use =ROUNDDOWN(2.1,0). And if you were looking to turn 505.00 into 500, you’d go with =ROUNDDOWN(505,-1).

Look, I guess ROUNDUP and ROUNDDOWN aren't really addressing what this person is actually asking for—they seem to be looking for "standard" rounding rules.