Jump to content
Guests feel free to register and post ×
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS AND GUESTS FEEL FREE TO REGISTER AND POST ×
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS AND GUESTS ×

NHB new rule addition.


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

 

So @kfools ... why this new rule ... NOW?

 

Who contacted you about this?

 

Who threatened the site?

 

I think we might have a right to know who is pressing your buttons now.

Nobody is pressing my buttons.

 

You like scrolling past an entire page for one post?

 

I sure fucking don't. A tactic of spammers here has long been to guise spam in articles. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, kfools said:

Nobody is pressing my buttons.

 

You like scrolling past an entire page for one post?

 

I sure fucking don't. A tactic of spammers here has long been to guise spam in articles. 

 

You know, kfools, I wouldn't mind this rule AS MUCH if it did NOT apply to the OP.   It makes it very hard to really START an intelligent discussion about any topic because most topics are a lot more complicated than one paragraph.   The spamming you should be concerned about is what some posters do to stop discussion of the OP.  

 

Also, even in the body of a thread, it severely impacts intelligent discussion.   Threads like my dark matter thread, my threads on Bill Clinton and Obama, my response to leftists and RINOs regarding Fabian Socialism, for example, will be next to impossible with this new rule.  I might just have to go elsewhere.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

 

You know, kfools, I wouldn't mind this rule AS MUCH if it did NOT apply to the OP.

Kinda surprised you have a problem with it at all. Rule makes sense. It isn't invasive. No need to post an entire article when the link is right there.

Quote

  It makes it very hard to really START an intelligent discussion about any topic because most topics are a lot more complicated than one paragraph.  

Wait. You don't need to only post one paragraph. Just one paragraph from the article. That is usually enough for a person to determine if they want to read it.

Quote

The spamming you should be concerned about is what some posters do to stop discussion of the OP.  

That is harder to get after.

Quote

Also, even in the body of a thread, it severely impacts intelligent discussion.

Hiw?

Quote

  Threads like my dark matter thread, my threads on Bill Clinton and Obama, my response to leftists and RINOs regarding Fabian Socialism, for example, will be next to impossible with this new rule.  I might just have to go elsewhere.

 

 

As is your choice. I dont see how exactly they will impact you. I doubt seriously anybody reads everything posted from most of these articles anyways.

 

Your commentary YOU write can be virtually endless as long as it isn't redundant. Like writing "I hate commies" 300 times or something.

 

That said, as you choose to stay (If you do) this rule will be enforced. It will help us keep the spam down. 

 

I've looked around. If there is a more free venue than this one I have yet to find it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kfools said:

Kinda surprised you have a problem with it at all. Rule makes sense. It isn't invasive.

 

But I do ... for the reason stated.   It makes INTELLIGENT discussion more difficult.

 

Quote

No need to post an entire article when the link is right there.

 

What?   You never heard of the phrase, *rubbing their noses in it*?   By  putting material in the post rather than leaving it hidden in the link, no one (especially leftists) on the thread can claim they didn't see it.   

 

Quote

Wait. You don't need to only post one paragraph. Just one paragraph from the article.

 

I understand that.   All you're doing, however, is substituting a probably well written article (in the case of my posts) for a perhaps badly written summary that the poster tries to put in their own words without being accused of plagiarism.  Also that summary might take considerable time to write, making it less likely that the discussion will take place in the first place.   I certainly don't have time to do that sort of thing very often.

 

 

Quote

That is harder to get after.


No it isn't.   You just enact your rule for all posts other than the OP.

 

Quote

Hiw?

 

Because, like I said, most topics are much more complicated than one paragraph.

 

Quote

As is your choice. I dont see how exactly they will impact you. I doubt seriously anybody reads everything posted from most of these articles anyways.

 

Then what's the problem?   If having to scroll past them really bothers you, why aren't you equally bothered by the vomit of posters like dontlooknow, benson, and 5x5 on threads, who often force posters to scroll past PAGES of posts to get to posts that actually pertain to the OP?   Why allow that but ban someone who at least posting something pertinent to the topic?   Something worthy of discussion?

 

Quote

I've looked around. If there is a more free venue than this one I have yet to find it.

 

Not going to remain free long, once Harris takes office.

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it.

 

the biggest challenge on this site is the uneducated leftist cult followers - and spam.

 

I get you can’t help the stupidity of people and more posters is (mostly) good for business. But you can certainly limit the spam. Pasting massive articles that rarely are read, and the idiots that only post cartoons would go a long way to site improvements.

 

A blurb from an article with the link makes a lot of sense. The only people that’ll bitch about that are lazy losers.

 

Well done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, LaughinAtLefty said:

A blurb from an article with the link makes a lot of sense. The only people that’ll bitch about that are lazy losers.

 

It that what you consider me, LaughInAtLefty?   A lazy loser?    I bet I've posted a LOT more material to this forum for discussion than you have, both in the way of OPs and posts debunking something a leftist has posted.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

 

It that what you consider me, LaughInAtLefty?   A lazy loser?    I bet I've posted a LOT more material to this forum for discussion than you have, both in the way of OPs and posts debunking something a leftist has posted.  

Nope. I read the first page before skipping to the last - and it was filled with that spycar idiot sniveling his panties off. 
 

That being said.....spam sucks. There are exceptions to the rule, such as all the data you collated from numerous sites during the first few months of the pandemic. That being said, these guys that post War and Peace IMO is nothing more than spam. Putting the crux of the reply along with a link is more than sufficient. If it’s something of interest, and one wants to read more.....a simple click of the attached link is more than accommodating, while helping to reduce spam at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, LaughinAtLefty said:

If it’s something of interest, and one wants to read more.....a simple click of the attached link is more than accommodating, while helping to reduce spam at the same time.

 

Odd how fact filled articles are spam around here ...

 

... but what dontlookknow, Zaro, Benson, 5x5 and a few others do is not.   

 

Just saying ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

 

Odd how fact filled articles are spam around here ...

 

... but what dontlookknow, Zaro, Benson, 5x5 and a few others do is not.   

 

Just saying ...

I don’t believe the question is whether they’re “fact filled” or not, but the simple volume of some of these are exceptionally long.....thus creating spam.

 

Undoubtedly everyone feels their’s are fact filled, but there’s no need to post 5 pages of it to where someone has to scroll and scroll and scroll just to get to the next post. The highlights, with the accompanying link seems to be a reasonable solution, wouldn’t you agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, LaughinAtLefty said:

I don’t believe the question is whether they’re “fact filled” or not, but the simple volume of some of these are exceptionally long.....thus creating spam.

 

I don't believe that more than a paragraph of on topic, well written material makes something into spam.   Authors (real ones) go to great trouble to present their ideas.     Seriously, are we adults or not?   Are we incapable of reading them.    If you don't want to read an article then don't read it.  Scroll past it.  That's the same excuse that has been given for allowing the posters I mentioned above to clutter up the forum with thousands and thousands of disruptive posts.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

 

But I do ... for the reason stated.   It makes INTELLIGENT discussion more difficult.

I dont see how. I didn't see you make a good case for that.

8 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

 

What?   You never heard of the phrase, *rubbing their noses in it*?  

Sure. It doesnt seem necessary. If a lib wants intelligent discussion they will read your links.

8 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

By  putting material in the post rather than leaving it hidden in the link, no one (especially leftists) on the thread can claim they didn't see it.   

That doesn't hold water man. You can just report the link. 

8 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

 

I understand that.   All you're doing, however, is substituting a probably well written article (in the case of my posts) for a perhaps badly written summary that the poster tries to put in their own words without being accused of plagiarism.  

I think a paragraph is sufficient to get the gist of an article across.

8 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

Also that summary might take considerable time to write, making it less likely that the discussion will take place in the first place.   I certainly don't have time to do that sort of thing very often.

 

Then don't. 

8 hours ago, BeAChooser said:


No it isn't.   You just enact your rule for all posts other than the OP.

This is worth considering and I will. Even if this is enacted though you still won't be able to post the whole article. Perhaps more of it.

8 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

 

Because, like I said, most topics are much more complicated than one paragraph.

I agree.

8 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

 

Then what's the problem?   If having to scroll past them really bothers you, why aren't you equally bothered by the vomit of posters like dontlooknow, benson, and 5x5 on threads, who often force posters to scroll past PAGES of posts to get to posts that actually pertain to the OP?   Why allow that but ban someone who at least posting something pertinent to the topic?   Something worthy of discussion?

 

 

Not going to remain free long, once Harris takes office.

We will see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

why aren't you equally bothered by the vomit of posters like dontlooknow, benson, and 5x5 on threads, who often force posters to scroll past PAGES of posts to get to posts that actually pertain to the OP? 

 

Excellent fucking point!

 

Those posters (and others) hijack every fucking thread ... changing the subject ... and posting the same exact word or phrase, over and over again.

 

Meme after meme after meme by Benson, most of which have jack shit to do with the OP.

 

If you want to get rid of the convolution on this site, and the constant spamming, it will take more effort than just a rule that applies to not posting an entire article in the body of the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

What?   You never heard of the phrase, *rubbing their noses in it*?   By  putting material in the post rather than leaving it hidden in the link, no one (especially leftists) on the thread can claim they didn't see it.

 

I read your threads and posts, and I appreciate your contribution here. I usually read it all, even though I suspect most don't, especially those whose nose you want to "rub in it." That said, take this as constructive advice to remain within the rules and still get your point across:

 

You yourself highlight the relevant passages within the articles you quote, by using bold, red, and bold+red. I like that, it gets me to the crux of the article. So my advice is, just post THAT, the parts you feel are pertinent, and leave the rest at the link. I don't think @kfools will call it a violation if you post more than one paragraph, or combine clips into one big paragraph. Just keep it clean, that's all.

 

And if you need to make multiple points, just make another post or three. THAT is obviously allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kfools said:

I didn't see you make a good case for that.

 

That's your opinion (which counts for more because you own the joint).  My opinion is that most of what passes for discussion on this forum is a joke, primarily because everyone is looking at the leg of an elephant and only seeing a tree trunk ... because they have focused too much on a single detail rather than the whole of the problem or issue.

 

Quote

If a lib wants intelligent discussion they will read your links.

 

You make the mistake of thinking that I'm trying to engage liberals in intelligent discussion ... in discussion at all.   My years here have taught me that's not possible.   No, kfools, as I've stated many times, my audience is other conservatives and independents out there.   I'm trying to give them (and myself) a better understanding of the issues and engage in discussion with them.   I've had many conservative members respond to my long detailed, well organized posts with kudos.   It's my opinion that your new rule will make that much less likely to occur.   

 

Quote

That doesn't hold water man. You can just report the link. 

 

You're being non-responsive.   You didn't dispute what I wrote.   You just ignored it.   You apparently haven't understood the expression "rub their noses in it".   And your rule lets libs just say *I didn't see whatever you pointed out* truthfully.  You're providing them an out where they won't have to obviously lie to the forum.

 

Quote

I think a paragraph is sufficient to get the gist of an article across.

 

Well I don't.    Look, your excuse for doing this is that longer posts make you (not everyone, but you at least) want to scroll past the post.   You call it spam even though the post had no intent to derail the discussion OFF THE TOPIC.   As I've noted, it's odd that being upset with a long article that is clearly on-topic is a problem to you, yet you allow posters like dln, zaro, benson, 5x5 and others to literally litter threads with off-topic nonsense that readers have to scroll past in order to find on-topic posts and continue the discussion.   I can provide many examples where those individuals put more off-topic posts on a thread than the posts pertaining to the topic, and they did it with the clear intent of wanting to derail the discussion, not promote it.   And complaints about that to management have fallen on deaf ears, with the response always given being ... *just scroll past it*.    Ironic, isn't it?

 

Quote

Then don't. 

 

I may not, in which case the level of discussion on this forum will drop I think measurably.   I'll stop trying to provide content for discussion to this forum (go look at the number of articles and topics I've brought to the forum for discussion) and IF I post, I'll just spout the mostly mindless nonsense most everyone else does here ... FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY.   If that's the type of forum you're interested in building, kfools, then that's your prerogative.   But I'll spend a lot less time here.    Maybe no time at all.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SixShooter said:

That said, take this as constructive advice to remain within the rules and still get your point across


I intend to remain within the rules.   I always have ... unlike so many of those whose complaints about have been ignored ... like 5x5.

 

Quote

You yourself highlight the relevant passages within the articles you quote, by using bold, red, and bold+red. I like that, it gets me to the crux of the article. So my advice is, just post THAT, the parts you feel are pertinent, and leave the rest at the link.

 

Thing is, SixShooter, doing what you suggest will take more time than what it already takes to repost and comment on articles like I do.     Frankly, it's not worth my time doing more than what I already do since as kfools seem to think, nobody is interested in what I post anyway.   Plus, if I do what you suggest, then the people whose opinion kfools seems most concerned about will need to *scroll post* numerous posts by me, not just one ... probably in total longer than the article and my comments would have been in the first place.   I hate to think that I'll be disrupting the fun of the thread disrupters (dln, Zero, benson, 5x5, etc).   Plus, those who actually are interested in the article and what I have to say about it will now have to take the time to move between the link while trying to make sense of where my comments in multiple posts fit in the scope of the article and issue.    A big mess.    So no, rather than post a mess, I'll think I'll just pass if that's what kfools wants.

 

Quote

I don't think @kfools will call it a violation if you post more than one paragraph

 

kfool stated 

 

Quote

 

Please check rule 1 section D

 

All mods are to enforce this rule to a T.

 

 

Given that, why would I take the chance?

 

Quote

or combine clips into one big paragraph.

 

Which will take extra work on my part and make a mess of the content.

 

Quote

And if you need to make multiple points, just make another post or three. THAT is obviously allowed.

 

But like I said above ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:


I intend to remain with the rules.   I always have ... unlike so many of those whose complaints about have been ignored.

 

 

Thing is, SixShooter, doing what you suggest will take more time than what it already takes to repost and comment on articles like I do.     Frankly, it's not worth my time doing more than what I already do since as kfools seem to think, nobody is interested in what I post anyway.   Plus, if I do what you suggest, then the people whose opinion kfools seems most concerned about will need to *scroll post* numerous posts by me, not just one ... probably in total longer than the article and my comments would have been in the first place.   I hate to think that I'll be disrupting the fun of the thread disrupters (dln, Zero, benson, 5x5, etc).   Plus, those who actually are interested in the article and what I have to say about it will now have to take the time to move between the link while trying to make sense of where my comments in multiple posts fit in the scope of the article and issue.    A big mess.    So no, rather than post a mess, I'll think I'll just pass if that's what kfools wants.

 

 

kfool stated 

 

 

Given that, why would I take the chance?

 

 

Which will take extra work on my part and make a mess of the content.

 

 

But like I said above ...

 

Ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:


I intend to remain within the rules.   I always have ... unlike so many of those whose complaints about have been ignored ... like 5x5.

 

 

Thing is, SixShooter, doing what you suggest will take more time than what it already takes to repost and comment on articles like I do.     Frankly, it's not worth my time doing more than what I already do since as kfools seem to think, nobody is interested in what I post anyway.   Plus, if I do what you suggest, then the people whose opinion kfools seems most concerned about will need to *scroll post* numerous posts by me, not just one ... probably in total longer than the article and my comments would have been in the first place.   I hate to think that I'll be disrupting the fun of the thread disrupters (dln, Zero, benson, 5x5, etc).   Plus, those who actually are interested in the article and what I have to say about it will now have to take the time to move between the link while trying to make sense of where my comments in multiple posts fit in the scope of the article and issue.    A big mess.    So no, rather than post a mess, I'll think I'll just pass if that's what kfools wants.

 

 

kfool stated 

 

 

Given that, why would I take the chance?

 

 

Which will take extra work on my part and make a mess of the content.

 

 

But like I said above ...

Hah. 

 

I got the solution. 

 

You can post the entire article minus ONE paragraph once a day. In one thread a day. 

 

I'm handing you this pass as you never asked for anything of me....so I will grant you a privilege. 

 

Compromise makes the world go round.

 

Nobody else may have this privilege. If they ask why tell them "Fuck you kfools said so thats why." 

 

Sometimes good members get additional privileges. Just like good workers do.

 

Good day.

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kfools said:

Hah. 

 

I got the solution. 

 

You can post the entire article minus ONE paragraph once a day. In one thread a day. 

 

I'm handing you this pass as you never asked for anything of me....so I will grant you a privilege. 

 

Compromise makes the world go round.

 

Nobody else may have this privilege. If they ask why tell them "Fuck you kfools said so thats why." 

 

Sometimes good members get additional privileges. Just like good workers do.

 

Good day.

 

Fair enough.   Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/15/2021 at 10:05 AM, kfools said:

Hah. 

 

I got the solution. 

 

You can post the entire article minus ONE paragraph once a day. In one thread a day. 

 

I'm handing you this pass as you never asked for anything of me....so I will grant you a privilege. 

 

Compromise makes the world go round.

 

Nobody else may have this privilege. If they ask why tell them "Fuck you kfools said so thats why." 

 

Sometimes good members get additional privileges. Just like good workers do.

 

Good day.

 

@kfools … as you must be aware by now, luciferhammer hid a thread I started under the above agreement.   I learned about it because teacher wondered where one of my posts (which he said he liked) had gone:   See ... https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/page/1171/?tab=comments#comment-1062338316 .   lh joined that thread and admitted that he got rid of it.     I then showed lh the above post from you and asked that he unhide the thread because it abided by the agreement.    He didn't.   In fact, he has now explicitly stated that he is not going to follow the agreement.   Here:

 


Then in response to SixShooter posting this to me …

 

 

… lucifershammer wrote

 

Quote

“Spot on.”


So, is it true, @kfools?  

 

Are you really not the boss and owner of this forum?    

 

Is it really lh who owns it and decides the rules?   

 

Has this all been just another of your jokes?  

 

If so, I'm out of here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

So, is it true, @kfools?  

 

Are you really not the boss and owner of this forum?    

 

Is it really lh who owns it and decides the rules?   

 

Has this all been just another of your jokes?  

 

If so, I'm out of here.

Yes, kfools is the owner... but LH runs the site.

 

In other words, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

 

Just sayin'

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2021 at 8:52 AM, Duck615 said:

fuck you asshole, you praised antifa and blm all summer...

Yes, because burning down a ghetto Taco Bell is the same crime as trying to assassinate Congressional Leaders and the Vice President and overthrow our Republic.

 

No wonder you sad little Conservative twats can't contribute anything to America. You are BRAINLESS.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BeAChooser man look at the post from kfools you just quoted. The guy's a jokester. Can you not see him smirking in that post? He starts it with "Hah" and then proposes a ridiculous backwards deal. What is serious about "post the entire article except one paragraph"?? That's obviously a tip-off that he's pulling your leg. What is serious about "nobody else may have this privilege"?? C'mon man. You got played. He's been playing people. He likes it. He's played me. You think he ACTUALLY LIKES @IcebergSlim?? LMFAO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, rippy38 said:

Yes, kfools is the owner... but LH runs the site.

 

In other words, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

 

Just sayin'

 

And I'm saying that if the owner has no ability to make his staff abide by an agreement he makes, then I'm gone.   

 

If that's the way it is, pretty soon lh will have you speaking Chinese, rippy.

 

And I want no part of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BeAChooser said:

 

And I'm saying that if the owner has no ability to make his staff abide by an agreement he makes, then I'm gone.   

 

If that's the way it is, pretty soon lh will have you speaking Chinese, rippy.

 

And I want no part of that.

 

Did you not see him brag that he told 5 he would let him out of hell for Christmas, then later post a thread ridiculing him for getting played, and NOT letting him out? Don't take anything he says seriously. Surely you learned that over the "teacher bought the site" lie...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...