Posts by Timothy Robinson2

shadowpilot8 said:Go ahead and laugh. I thought the same thing, and now I’m stuck paying a fine for using an image from the internet without permission.😁

Are you actually serious right now? If so, should I just go with an avatar or find a bigger image?

Not sure if we’re even on the same page here, but I don't think it should be brought back. If we're talking about what I think—that topic basically implies finding pleasure in sexual assault—that has no place in a Literature class. Maybe a Psychology seminar could handle it. I just think the subject is too heavy to be treated with this light, almost mocking tone.

That's just my take.

On specific subforums, you won't find anything like that. Actually, you might even get banned for trolling if you point out a forgery, since apparently, someone's personal translation of the Bible or other texts is considered just as valid as a scholar's work.

Can Timothy Robinson2 handle

Maybe... Or maybe Timothy Robinson2 can. 😉

Just hit up Sash.

Kate Foster12 said:So what if someone actually gets hold of your IP address? You should realize there’s practically nothing they can do with it... unless they have some massive influence at an ISP or a federal warrant in their hands.

Unless they get total control over your computer. Like, full access, including your mic and webcam 😬 ....

darksailor2 said:Nothing in this life is ever truly free. ☕

Look, they might not own the rights, but if you’re the one posting a photo on a forum, you can't suddenly start crying about privacy later—especially when your own post contains a link to some third-party PDF! I don't get what's supposed to be funny about that. 🤷

Look, I agree that it’s rude, ugly, and honestly just plain idiotic, but you can't exactly go around suing someone over it. 🤷 Look, you posted that picture yourself for everyone on this forum to see. Nobody is stopping anyone from saving it and then using it to call you out somewhere else later. That’s just how it works, I guess.
If he just grabbed an image from your Facebook profile and hit paste, then that’s basically a whole different set of posts right there. I guess.

What does that have to do with anything? 😁

I guess we're talking about JPK again. Maybe it's worth looking into. kaže:
Well, there you have it. Google's logo is officially owned by the forum now. Huge congrats to Anderlon!

Congrats to you.

The thread is still here! It hasn't been deleted from the forum! 😁

I don't know what to tell you. I guess people just want to believe whatever makes them feel better about their own choices. Maybe that's the problem. It’s all just noise at this point. kaže:
Of course there are. She posted that photo under specific privacy settings, which basically means only her friends—the people she actually gave permission to see it—can access it. I mean, why else do you think Facebook statuses don't just show up on Google searches? It's pretty obvious.

I mean, look, I’m all for an open internet and free software in general. But just because something is technically accessible online doesn't mean it belongs to everyone. Ownership matters. It's only "everyone's" if the owner actually allows it. Your Facebook is basically your own digital living room—you should have the right to decide what stays inside and what goes out.

Let's talk about Severina and that video Index posted a few years back. 😁
Severina lost that lawsuit because Index basically filmed someone who wasn't even authorized to distribute that footage to anyone!
Suppose Severina posted that video to her Facebook profile, but she set the privacy settings so only her friends could see it. Would she actually have grounds to sue Index if they went ahead and published the same video themselves? I guess it really comes down to how you look at it, maybe. 😁

Oh yeah, I totally forgot about this one!
I managed to dig up some old off-topic threads using Google searches! They were deleted a long time ago, but I found them. They're all available for everyone to see now. 😁

So, long story short! I don't think it breaks any rules if someone just takes that xy image he posted on Reddit and copies it over to MK.
If that thread got nuked, but someone saved a screenshot to their hard drive just to go around posting it all over the forum later... I mean, honestly, that’s just low-class behavior. It’s petty. But even then, I don't think it actually breaks any rules. Just like how people's posts don't get deleted just because someone asks, I don't see why images should be any different. Once an image is posted here, it belongs to the forum. That's how it works.
If a mod just ripped an image from a deleted thread and posted it somewhere else—which I guess they can do since they hold all the power—then yeah, they're acting like a total jerk. But honestly? The owner put that picture on the forum themselves. They basically handed over their privacy the moment they hit upload.

I'm not sure. I guess she might if it was on a private profile rather than a public fan page. I mean, the news outlet could potentially be forced to reveal which friend gave them access, and she could sue over that. Plus, there's always the copyright issue, since ownership exists the moment the work is created.

Say you take pictures of your zucchini (the vegetable) and they end up in a cookbook where someone makes money off them (😁 yeah, I'm talking about you), I don't think you'd feel like they were acting all legal and ethical, even if you didn't explicitly put a copyright notice on it. Especially if the person making money was one of your Facebook friends or sold it further along.

darksailor2 said:I don't get it. What's actually happening here? 😁 🤣

Let me break it down for you. 😬

I think Kate Thompson67 is saying that if people can't make things happen through official channels, then outside movements are just going to pop up. It's inevitable, I guess.

Basically, she's justifying something like the Boston Tea Party by arguing it happened because nobody would sit down and negotiate. She's saying when talks fail, you end up with revolutions or invasions and stuff like that. They aren't pretty, obviously, but maybe they're necessary sometimes.

Am I getting that right?

Eric Newman75 said:Not until the sequel drops—you actually need to know a bit more than that to pull stuff like that off. With an average firewall running, most of those users wouldn't even be able to "ping" you. I tested this back in the early broadband days, late 2004 or maybe early 2005 at the latest.

Hardly anyone had high-speed internet back then, and honestly, I was a total paranoid. I gave some guy my IP address just to see what would happen, turned on ZoneAlarm, and cranked the security settings to the absolute max. He couldn't find me at all.

It’s true that it's harder now since everyone has some kind of automatic firewall running, and those old-school little programs don't really work like they used to. But if someone actually knows what they're doing and acts maliciously, they can be pretty dangerous. Combining an IP address and an email with a bit of basic human stupidity? That's a bad mix.

That's why you shouldn't click links or download stuff from sketchy sites, especially if someone is offering something or begging you to run a file.

Jason Morgan said:Dustycrane8, please, do take a moment to actually read the very first sentence of the post you just quoted; I stated my position on that move quite clearly. 🤷

My point is this: if someone posts something on a public site, you can argue until you're blue in the face about how tacky it is to circulate that link through other sub-forums, but the reality remains that the responsibility lies with the person who put it on the internet in the first place.
Please, let's stop acting as though anyone here thinks it's acceptable for a moderator to dig through the archives to pull out images for public display. Honestly. Timothy Robinson2, I'm looking at you 😁
Discussing "ownership" of things found online in this specific context is, frankly, a bit of a nonsense argument.

I haven't the slightest clue what you're getting at, nor do I understand why you're directing this question toward me. 🤷

🙂

darksailor2 said:Sure, why not? 😁

But if he does, I guess he'll just credit you as Timothy Robinson2 instead of your real name! 😁

p.s. Susan Price30, that thread about legs wasn't deleted! Everyone on the forum can still see it just fine. 😁
edit: dustycrane8, I finally wrote out an explanation for you! 😁

Maybe, if Timothy Robinson2 actually gets something out of it. I guess my code is basically the key that turns him into... well, so... he's just Timothy Robinson2.

darksailor2 said:

Timothy Robinson2 (No content provided to rewrite.)
Do you seriously think it’s okay to drag up topics from several years ago? And I mean, watch it now—not just things people forgot, but... Deleted. What's on your mind? Any topics?

I guess this is just someone trying to flex their identity or something.

I don't even know why you guys are suddenly jumping on this. 😕

If you go ahead and post a photo of yourself on Reddit, you might as well kiss your privacy goodbye right then and there. I guess it's just common sense. 🤷
So, what, if you post a photo on Reddit, I'm just not allowed to grab it and repost it on some other forum? 😕 Who exactly is defending you right now? Everything you’ve posted on Reddit—just like what Kate Foster12 said—is the property of the site. That includes your profile picture. It doesn't matter which section of the forum you uploaded it to (though I guess PMs are a different story).

Maybe Jason Morgan just phrased things a bit clumsily and ended up including the entire internet in her statement! But look, if some brat is out there posting half-naked selfies on top of a washing machine...🤦She posted it right on her own Facebook profile, so there’s really nothing to complain about. One day, she’ll just have to deal with Google's search engine popping that photo up whenever someone searches her name. 🤷 She posted a photo under her own name and then deleted it, but the picture didn't actually go anywhere. I mean, stuff doesn't just vanish from the internet like that. There are probably thousands of people out there saving copies just waiting for the chance to repost them out of pure spite. And there’s nothing you can do about it legally. Honestly, the same thing applies to Reddit.

I mean, you can, but if the thread gets deleted, then maybe not.

Jason Morgan probably just misspoke and lumped the entire internet into it.

I don't think it's anything against Africa, it's more about the idea that someone could exploit deleted threads—you know, like how people complain about moderators being power-tripping lately. 😁.

But look, if some kid posts half-naked photos on their washing machine 🤦 and puts them on their Facebook profile, they can't really complain when a Google search pulls those images up later.

Of course there's a difference. She posted that under specific settings meant for certain people—her friends, specifically. I guess it's why Facebook statuses don't just pop up in Google searches.

I'm all for a free and open internet, but just because something is online doesn't mean it belongs to everyone. It belongs to the owner, as much as they want it to. Your Facebook is basically your own digital living room; you should get to decide what stays inside and what goes out. 😁.

Reddit is kind of like high school. You've got different cliques and groups, like the drama club 😬, and so on. A teacher isn't going to take a student's essay and publish it in a book.

There's no reason to punish them! The same rules apply to the forum!

They absolutely should be punished, and hard. It's simply not their photo to share. If they own it, they own it for themselves 😬—not for public distribution.

Kate Foster12 said:Anything you post on Reddit becomes the property of Reddit, not yours.

Reddit can use it, I guess, but they don't own it. If you post a photo of yourself and they try to sell it for an ad campaign... it doesn't really work like that.

Besides, when some old thread from years ago gets bumped, you usually just get a ban. So, what am I supposed to get when a locked and deleted thread from years back gets revived?

Do you think the owner of Reddit actually has the right to publish a book made of my posts?

Kate Foster12 said:That’s a different matter entirely—but you need to realize that once you put something out there on this Reddit, there's no taking it back.

Yeah, it's rude and it's low-class, sure—but you surrendered that privacy the exact second you hit "send" on a post containing a photo.

That isn't true at all. Only the person who owns the image has the right to publish it publicly. Just because something is posted online doesn't mean it enters the public domain. Especially since the thread was locked and deleted, it's more like leaking private info.

Jason Morgan said:Once you put a photo out there on the internet, the game is over. Period. Maybe 476 people on Reddit saw it, and maybe they decide to repost it just as easily. If you actually have a grievance against someone specific, then quit being vague—tell me who, what, and where.

Do you actually think it's okay to dig up threads from years ago? And I mean not even forgotten ones, but deleted threads?

And all this just to prove someone's identity or whatever.

hollowtrucker77 said:Timothy Robinson2, I say either report the posts you don't like, or just go play somewhere else with your little toys.
If the mods don't do anything, then we'll see what happens here.

1. ...
2. fine by me. I'll head out. maybe I'll find some other place to "play." peace. 👍

First off, these weren't directed at me, so I'm keeping this as unbiased as possible. Besides, I can't exactly report them one by one to a mod since they were all pulled from just the last three posts of this guy.

As for context... I didn't realize there was some magical way to say spare me the schizophrenic conclusions without it being considered an insult, trolling, or armchair psychology.

We could try going to the FBI (just kidding 😁) and saying: when you vent your frustrations like this instead of actually answering because you're incapable of providing one in any peaceful setting. Or maybe over on the science boards, I could ask: How much of a crazed fanatic do you have to be to even reach that conclusion? , I'd love to see how they react to that.

I'm looking through the politics section too, and I'm curious—if I responded to someone with a totally calm, benign comment like: I think every idiot suffers from the delusion that their mindless rambling is profound, but with you, it’s starting to look like a clinical pathology. , I wonder how many points that would cost me.

People here, myself included, are always complaining that something isn't trolling because it was taken out of context. Sure, maybe you need a certain amount of seniority on a forum to tell the difference, but you don't need years of experience to see that someone using this kind of language in three posts isn't here for a debate. This person just moves from one thread to the next doing the same thing without any consequences, despite the reports.

And yeah, this needs extra context too. So, I guess I'll suggest we all just start posting those quotes across different subforums to see how many situations exist where those sentences aren't grounds for a ban.

First off, I’m not trying to troll here. I just genuinely want to know if any of these statements—kept anonymous without using 😁—would be considered trolling or an insult to other users on this forum. Here they are:

Is there even a limit to how obsessed you are?

- your pathetic attempt at analyzing my personality isn't actually an argument either.

when you can't give a real answer, you just lash out like this instead of making a point.

Another outburst, and now you're switching genders while talking about yourself?

Just like any typical fanatic, you cherry-pick one sentence and ignore the rest. Aren't you tired of lying like that?

And here we go again with your delusional personality analysis since you have no actual arguments.

Look, I don't care about what you "know" (because you clearly don't), I care about the mindless copying. Just stop trolling.

Does every single sentence have to be dumbed down just so you can understand it?

Spare me these delusional conclusions.

How much of a fanatic do you have to be to reach a conclusion like that?

Didn't I tell you you were wrong? I mean, you’d have to be pretty delusional to land on that conclusion.

I think every idiot suffers from the delusion that their mindless rambling is some kind of profound insight, but with you, it’s starting to look like an actual pathology.

So these are the posts. Anyone want to give me a quick breakdown of what's going on here?

dustyranger64 said:The thing is, trolling is such a gray area. It's right on the edge of being spam or off-topic, and sometimes it crosses into harassment. I guess there's just always some uncertainty when you're trying to figure out what's actually happening needed.

I think you nailed it. That’s really where the issue lies. Better to let a guilty person walk than to punish someone innocent, I suppose.

Chloe Green61 said:It would probably just be considered off-topic if the question was phrased like, "Hey, there isn't any solid proof that God exists, does that ever shake your faith?" In that case, it’d likely get flagged or deleted for being off-topic.

I don't know, sounds like a polite question to me. So, asking something like that is already against the rules? If that's how it works, I guess I'm doing just fine then.

Chloe Green61 said:Q: how can anyone even believe in God when there's zero evidence for Him? 🙄

Characterize this post by D.

I guess it's just someone trying to make the debate interesting. Maybe they want people to actually think about their faith and explain how that feeling of God provides comfort or whatever...

Worst case, it's off-topic. I mean, it seems stupid to me if there's a thread, say, about wanting to marry rich, and everyone on page 101 is just going back and forth saying "bad," "good," "right," "wrong." It’d be way more interesting if someone threw in a new detail. Like, here we had kids and women looking for wealthy husbands—someone could have asked what happens if the guy has parents from a small rural town while he's highly educated, or how the woman would handle that stuff...

So, someone brought kids and gold-diggers into the mix, then this person jumped in saying it isn't normal according to natural or divine laws, and got shut down. If everyone who wrote more than "good" or "bad" is considered "cardboard," then fine, my bad. But if the whole discussion was deep and someone just mentioned the natural drive to have kids and got called out, then that feels unfair.

Actually, you just decided on your own (honestly, no clue why) that this specific case is the issue, but it really isn't.

The author framed the problem that way. I just agreed because I find myself in similar spots sometimes, I guess. 😁