insomniasexx, veen, JTHipster, eightbitsamurai, CashewGuy, b_b, PeterC, nowaypablo, mk, _refugee_, ButterflyEffect, BrainBurner, elizabeth, white, symmetric, galen I have one pretty useful rule. If you find yourself on the receiving end of alot of people's anger, it's a good idea to re-evaluate and see if they are right. I've done that. In the meaningful, human sense -- you're all basically right. My diatribe really didn't accomplish anything. I analyzed you as a collective and ignored a the fact that you have feelings as individuals -- quite an irony for me. Not the best analysis either. If it's worth anything to you, I apologize. That said, it is still a fact that there are plenty of the things that show up on the site that I vehemently disagree with, and that annoy me every bit as much as Ohio annoys JTHipster. (I badged his comment, BTW, not because I thought it was especially insightful or brilliant -- but because it was good deal more civil than I expected. I think that worth a badge -- and the fact that I would probably disagree with him about most things is immaterial.) Really, though, I'm not inclined to argue about my post or the replies. It is both embarrassing and unfortunate. Since I'm not fond of muting and ignoring programmatically, the easiest way to keep my blood pressure in an acceptable range is to just not look around here anymore. In different circumstances, I might have time for, and more interest in, the discussions -- and then I would need to work out the conflict. As it is, it is probably better for everybody that I focus my work on different audiences elsewhere. I haven't really decided whether or not to stop posting here altogether. I may continue. It's easy to do, and since you can choose to simply not read my posts or to programmatically ignore me -- there can't be much harm. (Yes, I know -- another damned ironic statement after this post. So it goes...) If I do continue to post, I will reply to questions -- just expect it to happen on a rather long time frame. That is all I have. I guess it will have to suffice. Auf Wiedersehen.
Respect homie. "Technically" you don't need to apologize if you meant it and you were right, but it's worth apologizing even if you meant it, even if you were right, if you weren't delivering it in a constructive and positive way to your audience. George Carlin can be George Carlin because his audience goes to listen explicitly George Carlin. Hitler can be Hitler because his audience listens exclusively to Hitler. WBC can be WBC because its audience has been trained to lose its ability to listen. They don't have to apologize to their audiences. But George Carlin, Hitler, and the WBC may earn themselves an "I'm sorry" if they host their performance in the White House, Israel, or Anywhere respectively. e- this was a harsh and exaggerated response to your statement. Consider it an unrelated tangent, my b :D I didn't mute or hush or whatever you, and I don't regret it now. like peter i hope to see you around.
You know, I've not commented here at all but I read the original post and I was heartened by the level-headed and "thoughtful" replies to what was a rather bombastic write up. I still haven't seen one link to the kind of content or comments that cause his "blood prussure" to fluctuate. Sadly, I think kleinbl00 likely has the proper motivation for the post, no evidence exists otherwise.
There is only one thing that I find even interesting about k's comments -- they're on my post. I have had him muted for a long time. So, mk , either mr. K has a special dispensation to be un-mutable -- or you guys have a mole on your admin team. Another good reason to go elsewhere.
Yep, those are the only two reasons that this could have occurred, KB has special powers or there is a "mole" on our admin team. insomniasexx or forwardslash can one of you "decent" folks look in to this? Thank you
Looks like you can reply to someone else in a post that you're muted in when looking at that user's comments so long as that user doesn't have you muted. Business logic: the cause of 80% of bugs in code.
You sure it wasn't because we have a mole on the admin team? We ought to fix this prior to the rewrite launch. What do you think? Is that doable?
Well, I hear if you put cat poop in the mole holes they leave.
It's because I shouted him out. Basically there is a loophole regarding shoutouts & mutes - the "letting the vampire in" situation. It applies to all users. Even I haven't figured out what specifics have to happen or what / where you can reply from. I was unaware that kb was muted by em when I shouted him out, so there was no conspiracy or mole.
Thanks insom, perhaps we ought to re-consider closing that vampire loop-hole. Or at least making the person shouting out aware of what they're inviting in...
It was the vampire invite. If someone shouts out to you, you can reply to that comment. It's an unintentional bug/feature that we decided is interesting enough to keep around for now.