Get rid of post your... junk threads

[GommeInc]

Fab, you don't even read your own points I see. Names came from the "just a note" thread since that's what it was about. Potential and promotion not being the same thing is my point from many many pages ago, thank you for changing your mind to agree to me. You spent days and days trying to counter what I was saying and now are literally saying word for word what I've been saying all along.

I never said that but as you fail to provide evidence I shall assume you're doing what you always do and making up a point (like when you didn't know what promote meant). Also posting a name is meaningless seeing as it was done clearly for the thread creator - it had no "meaning" to anyone else.

It is supported as per your own definition of support that I quoted (which you then claimed was me pointlessly posting... seriously if you can't be bothered to keep up with your own arguments what are you doing)

To be honest I'm bored replying for what is a non-problem.
Also, no it isn't. Saying it is without providing evidence isn't a counter-argument. Look up support again, oh wait you just replied with cool :rolleyes:

Bless, coming at me with my own points again

Stop wasting time again :rolleyes:

Listening is a totally passive act, quite easy to do.

So you can listen to music without opening a media player or doing anything? Honestly this is so pointless.

Calls me bratty and goes on to use ad homs and plain repetition. Hilarious that you tell me I can't read when you're ignoring literally every point because you don't seem to understand how to follow up a basic argument without changing it halfway through

If you're going to ignore a post and have a little whine then yes it is bratty, especially when you can't get your point across without looking ridiculous. Also your argument is hilarious purely because you can't read rules and seem to not know what certain words mean (support, discuss, promote to name a few). Dictionary.com, Oxford Dictionary and whatever Google have had a lot of use out of me.

I'm not sure why you're telling me I don't know what promote means when for the past few pages I've been solely using your definitions. Really the counterpoints write themselves when you're this ridiculous. Not sure why you think that me claiming you've changed your argument is hilarious when you demonstrably have done several times, even in this post.

It's nice to know you now know what it means,. The fact you're yet to provide a valid argument rather than pick on posts rather than the point is beyond me. It seems The Don noticed it too, how you seem to focus on small parts of a person's posts completely ignoring what it says as a whole (I again refer to how you fail to read rules as whole and only seem to see things in black and white). The fact you think potential and promote are the same is absurd and you're yet to actually use my definitions against me. All I've seen is a really half-baked opinion. Not forgetting that it is only you wanting the rule changed.

And why might that be? It was a discussion about fabric threads, not breaking any rules whatsoever. Maybe if I only had two brain cells like you I'd also think it was against the rules but I happen to possess a few more than that

Was it a discussion? Seems to be wanting just fabric threads in a clearly bratty way to make a point as The Don noticed. It wouldn't surprise me if it was written as Post Your Thread either, when anyone with two brain cells two rub together would know that in order for that to promote discussion would be to write it as "What thread are you currently using to sew with?" If that was to target the "Post what you're listening to?" thread it's blatantly obvious why those two are different. One is asking what you are listening to, the other just wants a fabric thread posted which is meaningless under the rule.

[FlyingJesus]

I never said that but as you fail to provide evidence I shall assume you're doing what you always do and making up a point (like when you didn't know what promote meant). Also posting a name is meaningless seeing as it was done clearly for the thread creator - it had no "meaning" to anyone else.

"I never said that" while quoting a passage that quoted you saying exactly that. Right. You are a joke.

To be honest I'm bored replying for what is a non-problem.
Also, no it isn't. Saying it is without providing evidence isn't a counter-argument. Look up support again, oh wait you just replied with cool :rolleyes:

Yes I replied with "cool" after quoting the definition that you yourself posted. Apparently stating the definition isn't evidence now...

Stop wasting time again :rolleyes:

By pointing out that you're repeating my own points back at me? I'm pretty sure you're the one wasting time in that case since you've wasted several days and pages of posts arguing against something that you're now trying to claim as your own point

So you can listen to music without opening a media player or doing anything? Honestly this is so pointless.

Yes of course I can :S You're right about it being pointless though; the entire reason I replied to that part in the first place is because your example was crap, as you're now proving

If you're going to ignore a post and have a little whine then yes it is bratty, especially when you can't get your point across without looking ridiculous. Also your argument is hilarious purely because you can't read rules and seem to not know what certain words mean (support, discuss, promote to name a few). Dictionary.com, Oxford Dictionary and whatever Google have had a lot of use out of me.

I haven't ignored posts, and (again) for the past few pages I've been using your definitions.

It's nice to know you now know what it means,. The fact you're yet to provide a valid argument rather than pick on posts rather than the point is beyond me. It seems The Don noticed it too, how you seem to focus on small parts of a person's posts completely ignoring what it says as a whole (I again refer to how you fail to read rules as whole and only seem to see things in black and white). The fact you think potential and promote are the same is absurd and you're yet to actually use my definitions against me. All I've seen is a really half-baked opinion. Not forgetting that it is only you wanting the rule changed.

Bloody hell you are genuinely illiterate. I do not think that potential and promotion are the same thing; it is your definitions that say they are. I have used your definitions against you and you just ignored it and decided that I was posting off-topic because you didn't want to read it.

Was it a discussion? Seems to be wanting just fabric threads in a clearly bratty way to make a point as The Don noticed. It wouldn't surprise me if it was written as Post Your Thread either, when anyone with two brain cells two rub together would know that in order for that to promote discussion would be to write it as "What thread are you currently using to sew with?" If that was to target the "Post what you're listening to?" thread it's blatantly obvious why those two are different. One is asking what you are listening to, the other just wants a fabric thread posted which is meaningless under the rule.

Brilliant, you're claiming that two threads with the exact same discussive elements are totally different. You've been saying for pages and pages that unless a thread literally states that it does not want discussion it's fine, and then flip your argument completely when it comes to a thread that I made which clearly does not do that and is/was open to discussion. Also posting about thread in a conversation about threads is not meaningless, try again.

[GommeInc]

"I never said that" while quoting a passage that quoted you saying exactly that. Right. You are a joke.

How so? You clearly never quoted me - I didn't see my name or a quote containing the post. Again, no evidence coming from you as per usual :rolleyes:

Yes I replied with "cool" after quoting the definition that you yourself posted. Apparently stating the definition isn't evidence now...

No that's just quoting me quoting the definition...

By pointing out that you're repeating my own points back at me? I'm pretty sure you're the one wasting time in that case since you've wasted several days and pages of posts arguing against something that you're now trying to claim as your own point

So you don't want the rule changed now? My point is it works and it clearly does. You're the only one thinking it doesn't.

Yes of course I can :S You're right about it being pointless though; the entire reason I replied to that part in the first place is because your example was crap, as you're now proving

So you accept you waste time by ignoring points? You did it earlier. I said the rule clearly states "one word answers and does not promote". The argument seems to be you thought it meant "or". Not that it matters since the same clause says "forum department has discretion."

I haven't ignored posts, and (again) for the past few pages I've been using your definitions.

You have. Loads of times. The fact you didn't reply to my point that the rule clearly says "and". Your argument seems to be to point out problems in someone's posts rather than their argument, and ignore the key issues, and waste time arguing a really moot point.

Bloody hell you are genuinely illiterate. I do not think that potential and promotion are the same thing; it is your definitions that say they are. I have used your definitions against you and you just ignored it and decided that I was posting off-topic because you didn't want to read it.

So you're wasting time again, since potential and promote are different? All threads have potential, but threads which actively discourage discussion are against the rules. Do you finally accept that, because if not then you need to read the rule again - if you can't read the rule that's your problem and since you're the only one with the problem I think may be you should stop being anal over an easy to read rule...

Brilliant, you're claiming that two threads with the exact same discussive elements are totally different. You've been saying for pages and pages that unless a thread literally states that it does not want discussion it's fine, and then flip your argument completely when it comes to a thread that I made which clearly does not do that and is/was open to discussion. Also posting about thread in a conversation about threads is not meaningless, try again.

Since you're a serial pointless poster maybe e5 thought it was meaningless? Clearly it was since not even the members of the Spam forum were interested in it (so it lacked "meaning").

Also @Phil mentioned a while ago you seem to annoy e5 or at least try to bully him. It wouldn't be surprising that e5 saw this as a way to annoy him and close it using his discretion.

[buttons]

I AM SO SICK OF SEEING THIS THREAD
FOR THE SAKE OF MY SANITY PLZ CLOSE @scottish;

[Chippiewill]

Get rid of this thread. Has even less productive discussion than the threads it's talking about.

[FlyingJesus]

How so? You clearly never quoted me - I didn't see my name or a quote containing the post. Again, no evidence coming from you as per usual :rolleyes:

It's not my fault that you're blind. The very first paragraph that I quoted contains the words "potential and promote are not the same thing". The evidence is in the post.

No that's just quoting me quoting the definition...

Which is what I said :S you claimed that part of my post was pointless despite it clearly pointing out the definition of support that you supposedly believe wholeheartedly in - or did until it became inconvenient for you

So you don't want the rule changed now? My point is it works and it clearly does. You're the only one thinking it doesn't.

I'm really not sure why you keep making things up that I haven't said, it's not the best tactic.

So you accept you waste time by ignoring points? You did it earlier. I said the rule clearly states "one word answers and does not promote". The argument seems to be you thought it meant "or". Not that it matters since the same clause says "forum department has discretion."

Oh goody more making up things I haven't said. You seem to be very forgetful of your own arguments since you previously were claiming that any thread that can possibly house a conversation isn't against the rules, and then changed your mind and also magically changed the wording of the rule to fit with what you wanted it to say.

You have. Loads of times. The fact you didn't reply to my point that the rule clearly says "and". Your argument seems to be to point out problems in someone's posts rather than their argument, and ignore the key issues, and waste time arguing a really moot point.

Wonderful news except that I've not claimed anything to the contrary, so it's not a point that needs to be discussed.

So you're wasting time again, since potential and promote are different? All threads have potential, but threads which actively discourage discussion are against the rules. Do you finally accept that, because if not then you need to read the rule again - if you can't read the rule that's your problem and since you're the only one with the problem I think may be you should stop being anal over an easy to read rule...

Yes promotion and potential are different, that's what I've been saying for days now. And no, you're the one that needs to read the rule again because there's nothing that says "actively discourage", it's about not promoting discussion. Now that you've decided to agree with me at last that potential is not promotion it really ought to be clear that looking at the words which actually are in the rule, the "active" role must be encouragement as opposed to just not allowing discouraging. You keep claiming that I look at everything in black and white and then do just that with promote/discourage even though there is quite obviously a lot of middle ground between the two words.

Since you're a serial pointless poster maybe e5 thought it was meaningless? Clearly it was since not even the members of the Spam forum were interested in it (so it lacked "meaning").

Am I indeed? Pretty sure the vast majority of my posts are not pointless at all actually, and well done on somehow morphing the definition of "meaning" to be "things lots of people are interested in". Not sure how you reached that but it makes as much sense as most of your other paragraphs I suppose.

[GommeInc]

It's not my fault that you're blind. The very first paragraph that I quoted contains the words "potential and promote are not the same thing". The evidence is in the post.

That's your post. Where did I actually say it? Paraphrasing from your post isn't evidence. The fact my post you quoted clearly says "Also, potential and promote are not the same thing" lso seems to allude you.

Which is what I said :S you claimed that part of my post was pointless despite it clearly pointing out the definition of support that you supposedly believe wholeheartedly in - or did until it became inconvenient for you

When did it become inconvenient? Seems to be working rather well, unlike you who seems to not post any evidence...

I'm really not sure why you keep making things up that I haven't said, it's not the best tactic.

Well seeing as the rule clearly is against threads which discourages discussion it's pretty obvious, and since it works in practice there's no argument for it being changed - other than because you can't understand it.

Oh goody more making up things I haven't said. You seem to be very forgetful of your own arguments since you previously were claiming that any thread that can possibly house a conversation isn't against the rules, and then changed your mind and also magically changed the wording of the rule to fit with what you wanted it to say.

Correct, but (you can't seem to read the word "but" or some reason, probably because you're doing what you do and missing points or purposely misreading to support an unknown argument), threads which discourage discussion are against the rule. It's blatantly obvious. Unless a thread clearly makes it clear that a discussion is not wanted, then it is well within the rules. This was accredited when I asked you if you would not walk on grass if there was or wasn't a sign saying otherwise. You seemed to agree because you answered "only if my feet would get wet" or something stupid - as it wasn't a real answer I took it as accepting.

Also you have so many failed points. Threads like Wrestlemania which you argued "just" want yes/no answers. Until it says "just" it is within the rules. Correct? Yes.

Wonderful news except that I've not claimed anything to the contrary, so it's not a point that needs to be discussed.

So you don't read rules as a whole then? Clearly this is important seeing as the rule clearly says: "Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion." Only allow for short, one or two answers. So threads asking "just post" only want one or two word answers are against the rules. Correct? Yes, as it is in the rules (basic English reading applies) ..."and do not active promote discussion" suggests (quite obviously) that it reaffirms the same sentence that a thread that discourages it by either asking just for one word answers or the thread creator later says they do not want replies, or want it closed, it is against the rules or wants the moderators to use the rule to close the thread. "just a note" is an example of this seeing as it must have been moved from the main forum for a reason, and as it was meaningless and didn't want a discussion as it was "just a note" it clearly was in breach of the rule. If I can interpret it like so, then so can moderators.

Yes promotion and potential are different, that's what I've been saying for days now. And no, you're the one that needs to read the rule again because there's nothing that says "actively discourage", it's about not promoting discussion. Now that you've decided to agree with me at last that potential is not promotion it really ought to be clear that looking at the words which actually are in the rule, the "active" role must be encouragement as opposed to just not allowing discouraging. You keep claiming that I look at everything in black and white and then do just that with promote/discourage even though there is quite obviously a lot of middle ground between the two words.

Honestly it's like talking to a brick wall. A thread which actively discourages conversation isn't promoting active discussion. The opposite of promote is to discourage, that's what the rule is against, discouraging people from having a discussion.. Are you really incapable of basic reasoning? If I post a thread asking for no-one to discuss anything, what am I doing? Not promoting a discussion. It's really that simple yet somehow English evades you. It seems you need to know the definition of promote again:

Promote - noun
support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of.

What's the opposite of encourage? Discourage. What happens if I discourage people from having a discussion? I am not promoting it.

Also I never said potential and promote were the same thing, but you fail to post evidence.

[FlyingJesus]

That's your post. Where did I actually say it? Paraphrasing from your post isn't evidence. The fact my post you quoted clearly says "Also, potential and promote are not the same thing" lso seems to allude you.

Again deciding not to read. It's IN YOUR POST literally the second sentence, I showed myself quoting it and you've even just mentioned it yourself, so not sure why you think it hasn't been shown and clearly you've just proved yourself that you were lying when you claimed not to have said it.

When did it become inconvenient? Seems to be working rather well, unlike you who seems to not post any evidence...

You ignoring things is not my lacking, and clearly your previous ideas became inconvenient because I showed how taking them on board would mean changes and you didn't like the outcome so you changed your mind rather than accept it.

Well seeing as the rule clearly is against threads which discourages discussion it's pretty obvious, and since it works in practice there's no argument for it being changed - other than because you can't understand it.

There is an argument for being changed; if there wasn't I wouldn't keep postulating one. You not understanding what I'm saying and flipping things around all the time is (once again) not my fault.

Correct, but (you can't seem to read the word "but" or some reason, probably because you're doing what you do and missing points or purposely misreading to support an unknown argument), threads which discourage discussion are against the rule. It's blatantly obvious. Unless a thread clearly makes it clear that a discussion is not wanted, then it is well within the rules. This was accredited when I asked you if you would not walk on grass if there was or wasn't a sign saying otherwise. You seemed to agree because you answered "only if my feet would get wet" or something stupid - as it wasn't a real answer I took it as accepting.

So essentially when you see something you don't like you just assume that you're right. The rule still does not say the word "discourage", it does however say "encourage". Your example with the grass was irrelevant since there is no overriding law saying one should not walk on grass unless instructed, whereas there is a rule here stating that a thread must actually promote discussion, and here again your own definitions work against you - either by promotion it requires active promotion and threads must ask discussive questions and not flat ones, or we accept your idea that "support" counts as promotion in which case even asking people not to discuss the topic isn't against the rules since that doesn't actually stop anyone - just like not asking doesn't stop people. If that's the case, that part of the rule cannot ever be broken and shouldn't be there. This is really very simple.

Also you have so many failed points. Threads like Wrestlemania which you argued "just" want yes/no answers. Until it says "just" it is within the rules. Correct? Yes.

Again my point is that if that's the case, nothing can break that part of the rule. Do at least attempt to read what I'm saying rather than just the bit you can twist into something else.

So you don't read rules as a whole then? Clearly this is important seeing as the rule clearly says: "Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion." Only allow for short, one or two answers. So threads asking "just post" only want one or two word answers are against the rules. Correct? Yes, as it is in the rules (basic English reading applies) ..."and do not active promote discussion" suggests (quite obviously) that it reaffirms the same sentence that a thread that discourages it by either asking just for one word answers or the thread creator later says they do not want replies, or want it closed, it is against the rules or wants the moderators to use the rule to close the thread. "just a note" is an example of this seeing as it must have been moved from the main forum for a reason, and as it was meaningless and didn't want a discussion as it was "just a note" it clearly was in breach of the rule. If I can interpret it like so, then so can moderators.

This entire paragraph is like saying "the Japanese invaded Manchuria in the past therefore it must be fine to invade Manchuria or it wouldn't have happened". Also as I'm (still) only talking about removing one part of the rule and have no problems with the rest of it there's no need for me to try arguing against the whole of it, that would be rather daft.

Honestly it's like talking to a brick wall. A thread which actively discourages conversation isn't promoting active discussion. The opposite of promote is to discourage, that's what the rule is against, discouraging people from having a discussion.. Are you really incapable of basic reasoning? If I post a thread asking for no-one to discuss anything, what am I doing? Not promoting a discussion. It's really that simple yet somehow English evades you.

PLS DUN FINK OV BLACKN WHIT!! I'm sure you'll now tell me I'm having a bratty tizz as you do any time I call you out for being hypocritical, but really if you think that all things which do not discourage a thing promote it then you have a long way to go in terms of understanding the world. I countered this bizarre reasoning before when I said "Wow guess I must be promoting slavery and genocide" and you entirely ignored it in your reply. A lack of discouragement is not promotion.

It seems you need to know the definition of promote again:

Promote - noun
support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of.

What's the opposite of encourage? Discourage. What happens if I discourage people from having a discussion? I am not promoting it.

Also I never said potential and promote were the same thing, but you fail to post evidence.

See above for why your "if X isn't Y it must be Z" theory doesn't hold any water, and as for potential = promotion, it seems you need to know the definition of support again. You previously stated it as:
"to carrybear all or part of the weight of; hold up" and is further defined as: "to be capable of bearing; withstand"
As I said before (and of course you ignored the point and told me I was posting pointlessly because you had no answer) which absolutely covers potential, especially in the second point. Once more you change your mind, tell me I haven't posted evidence where I have, and then claim absurdly to have the upper hand. Once again, if a thread is "capable of bearing" conversation (ie; HAS POTENTIAL, which is always the case unless it breaks one of the other parts of the rule) then by your definitions it is promoting discussion no matter what instructions it may have suggesting not to discuss the topic. If that's the case, the part about promoting active discussion ought to be removed since it cannot possibly be broken, and if not then everything else in your argument falls apart. You can pick between a small loss and a giant one, basically.

[Kyle]

crikey talk about beating a dead horse
the thread has served its purpose by drawing attention to the threads in question and deterring people that spam them from doing so in favour of actually joining in discussions. Shockwave in particular has been much more active and engaged with topics put to him recently, so all is well.

[GommeInc]

crikey talk about beating a dead horse
the thread has served its purpose by drawing attention to the threads in question and deterring people that spam them from doing so in favour of actually joining in discussions. Shockwave in particular has been much more active and engaged with topics put to him recently, so all is well.

Seeing as it is only one member who can't read the rule it seems this problem died out about 20 pages ago when it was stated that these threads are not abused or a problem, and the forum manager even acknowledged they weren't a problem either. It's a shame some people like to pointlessly rant over such a boring non-problem to change something for what does seem to be for the sake of change...