| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/24/2005 12:16:20 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Minor sidetrack...but how does this happen? I just took a peek at your profile and here is your voting history.
Votes Cast: 1
Avg Vote Cast: 6.0000
Thought the system wouldn't allow less than 20% voting on a challenge?
|
It's showing his voting on the current challenge, I think. If he doesn't get up to 20% entries voted, he'll go back to zero. I think...
R.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 12:20:29 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by notonline:
Originally posted by lhall:
And BTW notonline, you keep referring to the "other" post as offensive, but I have not seen that anyone was offended but you. |
Its not the point. The point is that my original comment was not threatening and should not have been reomved. If so (as this case may be) then so should the persons who's comment I was offended by. Please read all the pages before commenting. If you did then you should have seen my point and agree that SC shouldn't be hiding things. |
The other poster's comment was not "threatening" either, so I can only wonder why you felt threatened. |
|
|
|
08/24/2005 12:20:40 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by taterbug:
Well, normally I don't get involved in these heated debates (except for the occasional silly comment) but I can't sit and keep quiet any longer on this one.
notonline, I seriously don't believe you don't understand this. It would seem to me that you are seizing the opportunity to make a beg stink, which, 4 forum pages later, you've obviously succeeded there. I'll reiterate a little of what I said in our pm correspondance, I hope you don't mind. The post that you say offended you was spot on topic, and personally hard for me to comprehend how anyone could find it offensive in the context of that thread. It certainly was not offensive to the OP (me).
On the other hand, your response to it, and requesting that it be moved to rant, and especially the wording that you used, in my opinion was "tacky, inappropriate and offensive" especially in the context of that thread. It's easy to say that others are trying to spark a religious debate when it's not 'public' knowledge of the origin of this whole thing. To go back to that original instance, I think it would be clear that in fact, you were seeming to want to 'spark a religious debate'.
It's my opinion that SC did the right thing, and tried to just keep the incident isolated and prevent from starting a whole big 'thing'. You can't deny that it is you, that started it and kept it going strong. Of course, maybe I have a biased opinion because it was 'my' thread, but I would hope that if the facts were brought to light, most would tend to agree.
The take that I get on things like this, is that the person screaming about 'groups' being offended, couldn't really give 2 hoots about the real issue and is just stirring up the hornets nest and fighting for the sake of the fight. That bugs me.
It would be fine with me to bring the 'post's' in question to light. I guess it would be up to the 3 people involved, myself, you(notonline) and the actual poster of the post.
Like I said, I did find it tacky and unappropriate, kind of like going to a wedding, or funeral or christening or something and making a stink out of it because of their religious content.
All this is of course, my opinion, feel free to disagree, it is your right. Just don't try to quell my right to believe in what I believe in. |
don't give 2 hoots??? No your right. I hate religion and everything to do with it BUT (and there lways a but) I actually happen to own a religious website. No, not anti-religion but one none the less. No I'm not trying to spark a debate as you claim but trying to get SC as a collective to say 'yes' as it was an unjust NOT only in this thread but in all threads where they have deleted, edited, remove(unless threatening) or hidden. I also believe since it IS my post that was deleted nd I haven't brought it up in THIS thread that they have NO right in bringing it to life unless they post the original thread. By doing that it again shows my abuse in power by SC which again makes my point. I think SC needs to be revamped and Drew nd Langdon need to participate more in the workings of this site.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 12:20:45 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
It's showing his voting on the current challenge, I think. If he doesn't get up to 20% entries voted, he'll go back to zero. I think... |
Whew. I thought had to do with some super secret challenge to which there were only five entries. |
|
|
|
08/24/2005 12:21:50 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by notonline:
Originally posted by tfaust:
Originally posted by notonline:
So you agree with people editing your posts??? |
I am not offensive so I don't have the same problem. If I were - I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Edit: I should say, I don't have a history of being offensive. |
Neither do I but SC (whoever it may have been) does or seems to think so and that is my point. |
Many of your posts are provocative in the least and I find it easy to see how many of your posts, includung the one this morning, could easily offend significant portions of those people reading them. The post you made this morning had absolutely no relevance to the original topic and seemed to only have the intent of igniting some religious flame war in an unrelated thread. Don't you ever think before you post? Or is trolling something that gets you off?
If you want to troll, why not just start a thread in the rant forum? Better yet, start one on another site altogether (or start your own ranting blog) that encourages such "discussions".
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 12:25:09 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by lhall:
Originally posted by notonline:
Originally posted by lhall:
And BTW notonline, you keep referring to the "other" post as offensive, but I have not seen that anyone was offended but you. |
Its not the point. The point is that my original comment was not threatening and should not have been reomved. If so (as this case may be) then so should the persons who's comment I was offended by. Please read all the pages before commenting. If you did then you should have seen my point and agree that SC shouldn't be hiding things. |
Mine wasn't threatening either yet they hid it at that time.
The other poster's comment was not "threatening" either, so I can only wonder why you felt threatened. |
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 12:25:31 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by notonline:
This isn't a rant thread, its a general discussion. I'm not spouting off merely discussing and by moving it to a rant threat would jut be making more of a point about abuse of power. |
It's under the General Discussion topic, but you're certainly ranting. If the conversation became nasty, then the thread might be moved to Rant, but that's responsibility, not abuse.
Originally posted by notonline:
The way I see it is your just mad cuz you made my point back when you quoted 4.2 |
LOL. It takes a lot more than this to get me mad. If you review the posts you've conveniently ignored, you'll find that nobody else thought I made your point.
Originally posted by notonline:
...its NOT just about todays deleted thread post |
The SC doesn't play favorites or pick on people (we wouldn't last very long if we did). If a particular author's posts are repeatedly found to be offensive, that's not our fault. The same posts would be hidden or edited if they were anonymous. |
|
|
|
08/24/2005 12:26:53 PM · #133 |
Is his lunch break over yet?
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 12:27:22 PM · #134 |
| So, wait, someone posted a thread asking for a little support after a very bad experience, another person posts a Bible verse as a show of support and you attack the use of the Bible verse as offensive? Is this essentially what happened? |
|
|
|
08/24/2005 12:29:20 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by notonline:
Originally posted by tfaust:
Originally posted by notonline:
So you agree with people editing your posts??? |
I am not offensive so I don't have the same problem. If I were - I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Edit: I should say, I don't have a history of being offensive. |
Neither do I but SC (whoever it may have been) does or seems to think so and that is my point. |
Many of your posts are provocative in the least and I find it easy to see how many of your posts, includung the one this morning, could easily offend significant portions of those people reading them. The post you made this morning had absolutely no relevance to the original topic and seemed to only have the intent of igniting some religious flame war in an unrelated thread. Don't you ever think before you post? Or is trolling something that gets you off?
If you want to troll, why not just start a thread in the rant forum? Better yet, start one on another site altogether (or start your own ranting blog) that encourages such "discussions". |
Yea I get off on trolling. lol thats funny. Whats even funnier is you claiming that I'm trying to start something I'm not. If you HAD of read the WHOLE post (whcih its obviously you didn't) you'd see what I'm getting at regardless of religion. As scalvert said in 4.2 of the ToA... you should really read that to see WHY Im annoyed.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 12:29:37 PM · #136 |
i have a hang over stop all this talking!
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 12:32:54 PM · #137 |
edited to remove my dog from this useless fight.
Message edited by author 2005-08-24 12:34:58.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 12:34:18 PM · #138 |
uhm.... may I? notonline's website.... Enough said!
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 12:35:32 PM · #139 |
That is one of the greatest websites ever... don't be hatin'
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 12:38:08 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by notonline:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by notonline:
Originally posted by tfaust:
Originally posted by notonline:
So you agree with people editing your posts??? |
I am not offensive so I don't have the same problem. If I were - I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Edit: I should say, I don't have a history of being offensive. |
Neither do I but SC (whoever it may have been) does or seems to think so and that is my point. |
Many of your posts are provocative in the least and I find it easy to see how many of your posts, includung the one this morning, could easily offend significant portions of those people reading them. The post you made this morning had absolutely no relevance to the original topic and seemed to only have the intent of igniting some religious flame war in an unrelated thread. Don't you ever think before you post? Or is trolling something that gets you off?
If you want to troll, why not just start a thread in the rant forum? Better yet, start one on another site altogether (or start your own ranting blog) that encourages such "discussions". |
Yea I get off on trolling. lol thats funny. Whats even funnier is you claiming that I'm trying to start something I'm not. If you HAD of read the WHOLE post (whcih its obviously you didn't) you'd see what I'm getting at regardless of religion. As scalvert said in 4.2 of the ToA... you should really read that to see WHY Im annoyed. |
It's much more sad than funny.
I read your post, and I don't see why you feel that you have the right to just spout off whatever offensive post you feel like anywhere you feel like posting it. That's trolling and threadjacking to me.
Personally, I'm glad that you're annoyed. If you weren't that would mean you'd be free to run roughshod over the forums, posting purely inflammatory crap in inappropriate places.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 12:39:03 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It's under the General Discussion topic, but you're certainly ranting. If the conversation became nasty, then the thread might be moved to Rant, but that's responsibility, not abuse. |
but it hasn't become nasty.
Originally posted by scalvert:
LOL. It takes a lot more than this to get me mad. If you review the posts you've conveniently ignored, you'll find that nobody else thought I made your point. |
and nobody else said you didn't make my point. 4.2 makes my point for me which was posted by you.
[/quote=scalvert] The SC doesn't play favorites or pick on people (we wouldn't last very long if we did). If a particular author's posts are repeatedly found to be offensive, that's not our fault. The same posts would be hidden or edited if they were anonymous. [/quote]
SC is a collective and thus should be treated as such. If I make reference to one it should reflect you's all. Thats what a collective is about. If I make reference to SC then perhaps someone would look into the history of what I am refering to and see what I'm talking about OUTSIDE of today. I've been part of this site for over a year and think that SC should be changed to avoid situations like this. Situations where a member feels that there i abuse of power going on. Situations where when someone complains for a religious nature that it IS taken seriously nd just because they are a minority playing on a site in America doesn't give that site the right to belittle which is happening here. As stated before since this IS a no win situation for either part why not just lock the thread??? BUT post in your ToA that the site is located in America and majority rules NOT minorities.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 12:41:50 PM · #142 |
Defend the Offensive!
Offend the Deffensive!
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 12:48:08 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I read your post, and I don't see why you feel that you have the right to just spout off whatever offensive post you feel like anywhere you feel like posting it. That's trolling and threadjacking to me.
Personally, I'm glad that you're annoyed. If you weren't that would mean you'd be free to run roughshod over the forums, posting purely inflammatory crap in inappropriate places. |
I'm not spouting off whatever I feel like this is a general discussion. I was offended by another post original nd found that it was agrivated by SC- who deleted my post, when 4.2 of he ToA says I'm right. If you honestly think I "run roughshod" (whatever that means) over the forums and not play an active roll on this site should probably look at some of my stats. Have you commented on ALL the photos in a chalenge??? Have YOU offered advice when someone needed it??? Have YOU fixed someone's post photo in a forum you have NOTHING else to contribute to??? I became a member to support that site NOT to participate in members challenges. I started doing members challenges long after I became a member and this is just to name a few. So, until you start doing for the site intead of for yourself, why flap your gums??? For the most part I joke with everybody but everywhere but when I have a general concern I think it should be addressed. I'm also not the only one who agrees with me.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 12:48:31 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by notonline:
and nobody else said you didn't make my point. 4.2 makes my point for me which was posted by you.
|
Actually, a few people did.
Originally posted by mk:
I don't see that Scalvert admitted anything. |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Could you clarify that please? This was Scalvert's last post...don't see any statements/admissions that match what you are saying. |
Originally posted by notonline:
If I make reference to SC then perhaps someone would look into the history of what I am refering to and see what I'm talking about OUTSIDE of today. |
Maybe if you could provide examples? It would probably be easier to look into than vaguely referring to the entire history of the site.
Message edited by author 2005-08-24 12:52:19. |
|
|
|
08/24/2005 12:49:04 PM · #145 |
lol here's another one.
//www.ratemypoo.com
I have others but I'm not allowed to post them here.
Edit: By the way I never said that site was mine. Only one I liked.
Message edited by author 2005-08-24 12:50:49.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 12:51:16 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
So, wait, someone posted a thread asking for a little support after a very bad experience, another person posts a Bible verse as a show of support and you attack the use of the Bible verse as offensive? Is this essentially what happened? |
Could you address this, notonline? Is this essentially what you did? |
|
|
|
08/24/2005 01:00:28 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by milo655321:
So, wait, someone posted a thread asking for a little support after a very bad experience, another person posts a Bible verse as a show of support and you attack the use of the Bible verse as offensive? Is this essentially what happened? |
Could you address this, notonline? Is this essentially what you did? |
4.2 You will not use the DPChallenge.com Service to post content or to (v) does or may denigrate or offend any ethnic, racial, gender, religious or other protected group, through use of language, images, stereotypical depiction or otherwise
I think this sums it up for you. Originally post by scalvert.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 01:01:48 PM · #148 |
Thanks bear...I've seen this a couple of times...makes sense what you've said. I'll have to check back after the current challenges to see...really just a curiousity.
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Minor sidetrack...but how does this happen? I just took a peek at your profile and here is your voting history.
Votes Cast: 1
Avg Vote Cast: 6.0000
Thought the system wouldn't allow less than 20% voting on a challenge?
|
It's showing his voting on the current challenge, I think. If he doesn't get up to 20% entries voted, he'll go back to zero. I think...
R. |
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 01:02:07 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by notonline:
4.2 You will not use the DPChallenge.com Service to post content or to (v) does or may denigrate or offend any ethnic, racial, gender, religious or other protected group, through use of language, images, stereotypical depiction or otherwise
I think this sums it up for you. Originally post by scalvert. |
That's an evasion. Please address my question. |
|
|
|
08/24/2005 01:05:32 PM · #150 |
Look everybody!!!!! boobies!!!!
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 12:35:48 PM EDT.
