|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/30/2007 12:01:52 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I can't comprehend written English and I will continue to make completely insane replies so long as you continue to rise to the bait. |
Fair enough. |
I thought baiting was against the rules!!!
Ray |
|
|
|
09/30/2007 12:17:40 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I can't comprehend written English and I will continue to make completely insane replies so long as you continue to rise to the bait. |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Fair enough. |
Okay, so explain to me how this ostensibly quoted, completely fabricated reply, is anything but a rude and ignorant attempt to inflame an argument.
What a mature and equitable way to deal with what obviously is your complete inability to be decent and reasonable.
Now, of couse, I should demand that SC have you flayed at daybreak, correct?
Can you come up with any legitimate reason why I shouldn't make a request to have SC remove this fabricated and inflammatory post?
And ask for them to sanction you for a fabricated abusive post?
Or maybe they have better things to do and your inability to have any decency can speak for itself.
So shall I assume that you don't have anything legitimate to say in reference to my rebuttal of your last post?
Do you really wonder why anyone moderating a site would get tired of this kind of abusive behavior.
Was this necessary or conducive to any reasonable discussion?
I feel sorry for you if that's the way you want to be.
Sure did a lot for your credibility with me......oh wait, you couldn't care less about anyone other than yourself, could you?
Message edited by author 2007-09-30 00:27:06.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2007 12:21:02 AM · #128 |
Hmmm. Maybe they only accept requests formatted in paragraphs and detest senseless double-spacing?
Bring on the sanctions. We are only pursuing this technology for peaceful purposes.
Message edited by author 2007-09-30 00:22:21. |
|
|
|
09/30/2007 12:28:26 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Hmmm. Maybe they only accept requests formatted in paragraphs and detest senseless double-spacing?
Bring on the sanctions. We are only pursuing this technology for peaceful purposes. |
I can tell.
You having fun nit-picking inanities rather than actual intelligent discussion?
|
|
|
|
09/30/2007 12:32:46 AM · #130 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Hmmm. Maybe they only accept requests formatted in paragraphs and detest senseless double-spacing?
Bring on the sanctions. We are only pursuing this technology for peaceful purposes. |
I can tell.
You having fun nit-picking inanities rather than actual intelligent discussion? |
Well there is no intelligent discussion with you. You do not carefully read what is written and you make assumptions based on an apparent desire to perpetuate discord. Read what I wrote and tell me how 'offering an opinion' (my words) equates to telling people how to do their job (your words). I have personally PM'd you before after you went ape on someone who was supporting your opinion simply because you did not take the time to read and comprehend what they wrote in the first place. Later you apologized.
So again, no, I don't think it's worth continuing to talk to you.
Message edited by author 2007-09-30 00:49:38. |
|
|
|
09/30/2007 12:39:56 AM · #131 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
So again, no, I don't think it's worth continuing to talk to you. |
Then don't be abusive and ignorant either.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2007 12:54:50 AM · #132 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Well there is no intelligent discussion with you. You do not carefully read what is written and you make assumptions based on an apparent desire to perpetuate discord. |
Which is pretty much your pat answer to anyone that doesn't agree with you.
You don't actually read carefully and discuss salient points that are brought up to you in return, i.e. your stance that you somehow have it set in your mind what *I* want to do, re: perpetuate discord.
Would you even consider addressing the points I brought up in return, such as the inconsistency of comparing what is being asked of SC here at DPC to telling a restaurant hwo to deal with their staff?
Or quoting "Facts" that are opinions?
I don't profess to have the answers, but I sure seem to have a lot better grasp on how things work in the real world, yet when I try and offer up my POV, you gotta go and get ignorant?
So.....back to your bio.....
"Originally posted by GeneralE:
How about the membership exercising some self-discpline and quit posting inflammatory, ego-bruising, irrelevant, or inane posts in the first place ... then we won't need any "censorship" by the SC members. "
So I guess I'm to assume that your hiding behind some weird identity, and having this quote up on your page, which indicates to me that you seem to take pleasure in atagonizing people, is supposed to demonstrate what a terrific fellow you are.
So guess what.....you wanna be clever with the witty little inanities, and you want to be ignorant and abusive, and you want to *NOT* actually discuss this civilliy, fine, but don't try to lay it off on someone else just because your story deosn't hold water.
If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.....and I'm not going to go away just because you want to act like a pedantic prig.
I feel quite strongly that there is a whole bunch of unnecessary abuse and general malaise being directed at a group of people who do a lot for the community and as I *know for a fact* that I have experience in doing same, I'm going to pipe up and say something when I have the opinion that it's rude and uncalled for.....
|
|
|
|
09/30/2007 01:05:00 AM · #133 |
Oink.
edit: woops, I thought you called me a pig.
Message edited by author 2007-09-30 01:05:35. |
|
|
|
09/30/2007 01:10:08 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Well there is no intelligent discussion with you. You do not carefully read what is written and you make assumptions based on an apparent desire to perpetuate discord. |
Which is pretty much your pat answer to anyone that doesn't agree with you.
You don't actually read carefully and discuss salient points that are brought up to you in return, i.e. your stance that you somehow have it set in your mind what *I* want to do, re: perpetuate discord.
Would you even consider addressing the points I brought up in return, such as the inconsistency of comparing what is being asked of SC here at DPC to telling a restaurant hwo to deal with their staff?
Or quoting "Facts" that are opinions?
I don't profess to have the answers, but I sure seem to have a lot better grasp on how things work in the real world, yet when I try and offer up my POV, you gotta go and get ignorant?
So.....back to your bio.....
"Originally posted by GeneralE:
How about the membership exercising some self-discpline and quit posting inflammatory, ego-bruising, irrelevant, or inane posts in the first place ... then we won't need any "censorship" by the SC members. "
So I guess I'm to assume that your hiding behind some weird identity, and having this quote up on your page, which indicates to me that you seem to take pleasure in atagonizing people, is supposed to demonstrate what a terrific fellow you are.
So guess what.....you wanna be clever with the witty little inanities, and you want to be ignorant and abusive, and you want to *NOT* actually discuss this civilliy, fine, but don't try to lay it off on someone else just because your story deosn't hold water.
If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.....and I'm not going to go away just because you want to act like a pedantic prig.
I feel quite strongly that there is a whole bunch of unnecessary abuse and general malaise being directed at a group of people who do a lot for the community and as I *know for a fact* that I have experience in doing same, I'm going to pipe up and say something when I have the opinion that it's rude and uncalled for..... |
I figured you would have turned off the rant forum by now to get back to photography.
Are you still here promoting the idea that non-photography discussions have no place here and that not only do you not want to participate in such, you don't want anyone else to either?
Go take a picture. |
|
|
|
09/30/2007 01:17:22 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Are you still here promoting the idea that non-photography discussions have no place here and that not only do you not want to participate in such, you don't want anyone else to either? |
Wow!!! And you guys accuse me of not paying attention and quoting out of context!!!!
I did not say that they have no place here, I said that they aren't related to photography and that it's nice of the site operators to allow these forums.
Obviously, I want to participate in them, and when did I ever say that I don't think anyone else should?
For whatever reason, I do not seem to be able to get the concept across, or nobody wants to accept it, that all of this forum activity is only at the benevolence of the administrators of the site.
They don't have to have the forums, they don't have to act according to anyone's standards, and nobody has any right to tell them differently.
Anyone can have an opinion, and express it, but then don't get put out if it's deemed inappropriate and quashed.
All SC wants is to not be harassed and to not have to come put fires out.
Is that so much to ask?
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Go take a picture. |
That's the first sensible thing I've heard today.....and that's exactly what I did earlier.
I have an entry for Half that I love, and I might do pretty well in the FS, too.
Message edited by author 2007-09-30 01:20:55.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2007 02:04:30 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Are you still here promoting the idea that non-photography discussions have no place here and that not only do you not want to participate in such, you don't want anyone else to either? |
Wow!!! And you guys accuse me of not paying attention and quoting out of context!!!!
I did not say that they have no place here, I said that they aren't related to photography and that it's nice of the site operators to allow these forums.
Obviously, I want to participate in them, and when did I ever say that I don't think anyone else should?
For whatever reason, I do not seem to be able to get the concept across, or nobody wants to accept it, that all of this forum activity is only at the benevolence of the administrators of the site.
They don't have to have the forums, they don't have to act according to anyone's standards, and nobody has any right to tell them differently.
Anyone can have an opinion, and express it, but then don't get put out if it's deemed inappropriate and quashed.
All SC wants is to not be harassed and to not have to come put fires out.
Is that so much to ask?
|
I thought the following was pretty clear, if that's not what you meant, then perhaps you should proofread before posting.
And I never accused you of anything.
Why do you keep trying to get everyone to play by your rules? It's futile and it makes you look like a raving lunatic.
If the SC gets fed up with someone, I'm sure they can deal with it.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I thought that this was a photography site, not a chat room or debate club.
I think the tolerance level for the amount of pissing and moaning that goes on that has nothing to do with the site as it pertains to photography is pretty high.
Why not just sh*tcan all the forums that don't have anything at all to do with photography......like say, oh.....the rant forum?
Personal life and general discussion don't have much relevance, either. |
|
|
|
|
09/30/2007 04:54:53 AM · #137 |
Another forum I use, Whirlpool (an Australian site for broadband and related technologies, no association with the whitegoods manufacturer), has an interesting solution for the moderation of controversial posts that might be of help:
- If an entire topic thread is deleted, the content is no longer visible - but the fact that a thread was there is still apparent, along with a deletion reason (or a link to the correct thread/page). The topic title is still visible unless it was spam or offensive in some way, in which case it may be edited.
- If an individual message is deleted, the content of that message is no longer visible - but there is a placeholder with the poster's ID, time of message etc. along with a comment of why the message was deleted.
- The "poisonous tree" messages get the same treatment, with the deletion reason being "quotes deleted text".
- If you are the author of a topic that was deleted, then the message also indicates which moderator did it, you can follow it up with a "whim" (Whirlpool instant message) if more clarity about the reason is needed.
- There is a defined escalation procedure for people that disagree with a moderation action: review by a senior moderator, then review by the site's owner or his off-sider.
The aim of this is to provide as much transparency as possible in the moderation. Overall, it's probably just a slight extension from the earlier proposal (Muckpond's?).
Mind you, there are still plenty of complaints about the moderation at Whirlpool - just as there is at almost any site with moderation. But having been on sites without moderation, I much prefer the moderated ones.
Do the SC get it right all the time? Probably not. Do I agree with them all the time? Much of the time, but not all - but I'd only criticise if they were consistently getting it fundamentally wrong. Even then, if things didn't change, I would always have the choice to leave and find somewhere else more to my liking. Moderation is a hard job - and harder to do well.
(Whirlpool also has a "penalty box" where people who persistently violate the forum T&Cs can be put for a period of time ranging from a day to forever. While in the penalty box you can send private messages but not post on the forums, and a message appears under your name that says "in the penalty box" so people know you can't post - but not why or for how long.)
|
|
|
|
09/30/2007 05:03:01 AM · #138 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
You have a pretty interesting concept of how things work. If you don't like the service at a restaurant, do you say 'well they own the restaurant so where do I get off thinking I can have an opinion about the staff'.
Sorry. While I'm not saying anything one way or another about the actions of the SC, this site exists because people are charged to belong to it. That gives them the right to have an opinion about how it's run.
That's a fundamental fact of commerce. Website or otherwise. |
But you haven't completed the analogy. The restaurant management is not obliged to consider the patrons' opinions, and is free to eject (and refuse future business from) obnoxious customers. That's also a fundamental fact of commerce.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2007 08:35:09 AM · #139 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I thought the following was pretty clear, if that's not what you meant, then perhaps you should proofread before posting. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I thought that this was a photography site, not a chat room or debate club.
I think the tolerance level for the amount of pissing and moaning that goes on that has nothing to do with the site as it pertains to photography is pretty high.
Why not just sh*tcan all the forums that don't have anything at all to do with photography......like say, oh.....the rant forum?
Personal life and general discussion don't have much relevance, either. |
Once again, taken out of context.....the point I was trying to make is that these forums exist entirely at the benevolence of SC. Period.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
And I never accused you of anything. |
Once again, this was a general statement addressed to the people who were taking that tack. If it's not applicable to you, ignore it.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Why do you keep trying to get everyone to play by your rules? It's futile and it makes you look like a raving lunatic. |
I don't keep trying to get people to "play by my rules". Because of your projection and inability to manage to figure out that you don't have the inalienable right to just abuse others at will, I merely try, in a futile manner apparently to point out that the whole thing can be yanked out from under everyone whenever SC gets tired of it and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Keep pushing and it will happen because you cannot continue to slander and abuse people, call their integrity into question, and attribute quotes to people that never existed under some thin veil of freedom of speech or some perceived right to have everything explained just because you want it. And if none of that applies to you, so be it, but I certainly have been attacked enough by you and had you express to me that you don't think much of me. You're entitled to your opinion, but don't get your nose out of joint if I replay that I don't think much of you.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If the SC gets fed up with someone, I'm sure they can deal with it. |
Oh....not can....push 'em far enough....they WILL!
That's the whole point I've been trying to make for days.
They have ultimate authority.
They don't answer to anyone.
They choose to be a decent, understanding, and tolerant group of people who expend an enormous amount of time, talent, and patience for people who some days don't appreciate or deserve it.
I think that's all this pedantic, opinionated, whiny, stupid, obnoxious, thoughtless, do-it-my-way raving lunatic has to say on the subject. Feel free to soldier on without my input, I just hope sometime that you all realize that this whole episode of questioning SC and their actios is, IN MY OPINION, in incredibly bad form.
I'm gonna go take pictures.....
|
|
|
|
09/30/2007 09:27:20 AM · #140 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I thought the following was pretty clear, if that's not what you meant, then perhaps you should proofread before posting. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I thought that this was a photography site, not a chat room or debate club.
I think the tolerance level for the amount of pissing and moaning that goes on that has nothing to do with the site as it pertains to photography is pretty high.
Why not just sh*tcan all the forums that don't have anything at all to do with photography......like say, oh.....the rant forum?
Personal life and general discussion don't have much relevance, either. |
Once again, taken out of context.....the point I was trying to make is that these forums exist entirely at the benevolence of SC. Period. |
If that's the point you were trying to make, I'd say that little diatribe failed.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
And I never accused you of anything. |
Once again, this was a general statement addressed to the people who were taking that tack. If it's not applicable to you, ignore it. |
You put this little gem in a post that quoted me, a post that was a direct reply to one of mine and no one else. Why on earth would I assume it was directed at anyone but me?
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Why do you keep trying to get everyone to play by your rules? It's futile and it makes you look like a raving lunatic. |
I don't keep trying to get people to "play by my rules". Because of your projection and inability to manage to figure out that you don't have the inalienable right to just abuse others at will, I merely try, in a futile manner apparently to point out that the whole thing can be yanked out from under everyone whenever SC gets tired of it and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Keep pushing and it will happen because you cannot continue to slander and abuse people, call their integrity into question, and attribute quotes to people that never existed under some thin veil of freedom of speech or some perceived right to have everything explained just because you want it. And if none of that applies to you, so be it, but I certainly have been attacked enough by you and had you express to me that you don't think much of me. You're entitled to your opinion, but don't get your nose out of joint if I replay that I don't think much of you. |
You have called into question the integrity of everyone who disagrees with you. Evidently disagreeing with you is some form of personal attack.
I think it safe to say that I hold you in equally high regard.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If the SC gets fed up with someone, I'm sure they can deal with it. |
Oh....not can....push 'em far enough....they WILL!
That's the whole point I've been trying to make for days.
They have ultimate authority.
They don't answer to anyone.
They choose to be a decent, understanding, and tolerant group of people who expend an enormous amount of time, talent, and patience for people who some days don't appreciate or deserve it. |
Most people understand that, they also realize that feedback, no matter how emotionally charged, is the path to improving the site for all involved. If no one ever got upset enough to bitch or the SC operated in a totally authoritarian manner, DPC would be pretty dull. You are wrong about one thing. The SC is not the ultimate authority, the site owners are and the SC ultimately answer to them.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I think that's all this pedantic, opinionated, whiny, stupid, obnoxious, thoughtless, do-it-my-way raving lunatic has to say on the subject. Feel free to soldier on without my input, I just hope sometime that you all realize that this whole episode of questioning SC and their actios is, IN MY OPINION, in incredibly bad form.
I'm gonna go take pictures..... |
I can't argue with your personal self-assessment at all.
You admit this is your opinion, yet you have pissed and moaned and accused, pointing fingers and shouting at people who don't agree with you. That's like trying to tell someone whose favorite color is blue that their favorite color is not blue but that their favorite is red.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2007 10:06:48 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
.....the point I was trying to make is that these forums exist entirely at the benevolence of SC. Period. |
I just wanted to point out two things: one, that SC, the group of site members that volunteer to maintain user services here, would not be able to unilaterally choose to remove the forums feature or any part thereof at mere whim, or for any other reason. I belive that would be the privelage of the site owners, of which there are exactly two, if I'm not mistaken. As such, the forums don't exist simply because they're being kind to you.
Two, as has been brought up and like it or not, the site is member-driven, and membership isn't free. As you know, the site is regarded as a "community", and it would be pretty stupid of the owners to remove a major feature of communication of said community simply, as you seem to think possible, because they feel like it. Taking away the forum or any part thereof would be detrimental to the site's bottom line, and it would slowly whither away. So in that sense, the forums exist at the whim of the users. It makes sense to moderate the forums so all members can more or less enjoy them, but it is self-imposed blindness to assume that the forums' popularity and usefulness has nothing to do with their continued existence. |
|
|
|
09/30/2007 10:31:10 AM · #142 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
what this says to me is that the SC needs to review two policies:
1) consistency on how to handle duplicate topic threads. should they be hidden? should they be locked? there is an argument for both.
2) ensure that the last post in each thread is by the SC who is locking the thread with an explanation why that thread is locked. and, if it's a duplicate thread, a link to the other thread covering that topic.
|
I got to here in the thread and wanted to post...sorry if it is a duplicate. I bolded #2 because I think this would help solve any animosity that is felt by thread creators and posters when threads are locked or posts hidden. I believe  muckpond is right on track here and his post should be taken very seriously and brought to the attention of all members, SC and site creators. I will now continue reading this thread.
-drew
edit: i continued to read the thread, but lost interest in watching a few people have their back-and-forths...i'll keep my eye on this topic.
Message edited by author 2007-09-30 10:38:51. |
|
|
|
09/30/2007 11:07:20 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by drewbixcube:
Originally posted by muckpond:
what this says to me is that the SC needs to review two policies:
1) consistency on how to handle duplicate topic threads. should they be hidden? should they be locked? there is an argument for both.
2) ensure that the last post in each thread is by the SC who is locking the thread with an explanation why that thread is locked. and, if it's a duplicate thread, a link to the other thread covering that topic.
|
I got to here in the thread and wanted to post...sorry if it is a duplicate. I bolded #2 because I think this would help solve any animosity that is felt by thread creators and posters when threads are locked or posts hidden. |
I cannot speak for others that posted in this thread, but can assure you that as the OP, I most certainly do not hold any animosity towards the SC or anyone else for that matter.
My primary concern was to point out what I felt was a process that I believe to be flawed and had hoped to rectify. It would seem, based on the comments penned by Muckpondthat perhaps there was some validity to my concerns.
Any process aimed at addressing this issue rests entirely with the SC.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/30/2007 11:15:56 PM · #144 |
*yawn* *stretch*
oh!
is this thread still here?
anyway, rest assured that your comments have been noted and are under discussion. we are revamping our internal policy on thread locking. i have heard and am pushing for change.
now, go take some photos. ;)
|
|
|
|
09/30/2007 11:26:14 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
is this thread still here?
now, go take some photos. ;) |
I would, but I want to be here for the roll over and then it will be midnight and I have to be up by 05:00hrs and I need to vote and... well you know the rest.
Ray
PS: Thank you for looking into this matter. |
|
|
|
09/30/2007 11:51:06 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
anyway, rest assured that your comments have been noted and are under discussion. we are revamping our internal policy on thread locking. i have heard and am pushing for change. |
Awesome, tankoo :-)
|
|
|
|
10/01/2007 11:21:37 AM · #147 |
My brain hurts from this.
I think the gist of what should be done is this:
Give the thread starters/posters the benefit of the doubt on most things. I know we are all incredibly sensitive and cant take negativity or criticism etc, but this all could be solved simply by allowing "us" to police ourselves. If people don't like a thread, they will report it...trust me, from some of the posts Ive read on here, they will report a bad thread in a heart beat.
Imagine how much time could be spent on other things, if the SC only responded to complaints, as opposed to policing and scouring the forums for infractions.
Yes its also on the peasants and plebes to police their own thoughts and posts to an extent. We, for the most part, no what will set people off, and sometimes it is very fun to push buttons and I think its healthy to do so as well. This is coming from me, one of the most abrasive people on here (I forget who told me that.)
SC does a shit-ton of work, I applaud you for it, thumbs up, but why not let things progress naturally, and step in when requested, as opposed to stepping in and then opening yourself up for threads like this. But you can't please everyone all the time, and I dtihnk if everyone here realizes that too.
So bottom line is this:
Lets just not be morons, collectively.
and
THE PHILLIES ARE THE NATIONAL LEAGUE EAST DIVISION CHAMPIONS!!!! |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 11:31:07 AM · #148 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I cannot speak for others that posted in this thread, but can assure you that as the OP, I most certainly do not hold any animosity towards the SC or anyone else for that matter.
My primary concern was to point out what I felt was a process that I believe to be flawed and had hoped to rectify. It would seem, based on the comments penned by Muckpondthat perhaps there was some validity to my concerns.
Any process aimed at addressing this issue rests entirely with the SC.
Ray |
Ray, I was not speaking of your animosity towards the SC. It was more along the lines of other people who have their threads locked or posts removed (in other threads, not necessarily this one). There were a couple of other threads mentioned in this discussion, and my comments were pertaining more to those specific examples, not your original post starting this thread. Sorry for the confusion.
-drew |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 11:49:52 AM · #149 |
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
... but why not let things progress naturally, and step in when requested, as opposed to stepping in and then opening yourself up for threads like this. |
What makes you think that, when we "step in," that it isn't because someone has reported a post?
Also, as members ourselves, we have a duty to "report" a forum rules violation -- I myself have hit the "Report Post" button when I see something out of line, so that someone else can also look at it (getting a second opinion) before action is taken. But I don't think the fire department would/should let a building burn just because no one has pulled the fire alarm ...
Police yourself, by all means -- I suggested that quite a bit earlier. But if you don't, we will. |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 02:56:44 PM · #150 |
Im not saying thats not ever the case, but what I am saying is if you, and admin, see a thread that you don't like, don't lock it, report it...and let someone else lock it, or edit, or whatever. Then that guarantees a second set of eyes on it. But also, if 1 person reports a post, that also shouldn't be grounds for immediate closure. If you guys had to cater to the needs of a single individual, nobody would be happy, ever. The job is to make the masses happy, and for things to run smoothly. If someone gets offended by the word shit in a thread, thats no reason to edit it. We are all grown up heres (now do we all act like it? probably not, but still) and I think we all can handle some off color humor, a little negativity, and some opinions that seem out of left field sometimes.
Im thinking the guys that run the site should take the philly approach, and hire 10,000 black men to patrol the site. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 08:43:51 PM  |
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: 08/14/2025 08:43:51 PM EDT.
|
