|
And don't forget drunk. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
On this point I am often not a lamb. But I have learned (also here in CP) even to remain respectful. 
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree.
Bruno
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Quoting rules, probably only ever intended as guidelines not statutes, last revised in 2011 and featuring areas of the site that haven't even been in use since April of last year may not be the best way to go about winning friends and influencing people. Yes there are a few posts that should really have gone to the Soapbox and some that sail close to the wind but I hardly think that this forum is a den of iniquity. And if you're suggesting that respect involves never disagreeing with anyone over anything and never saying a bad word, no matter how witty and apposite, about anyone, then I'm afraid you've lost any sympathy I might have had for your plea.
I think on the whole we maintain a reasonable level of banter without pitching into the true bile and hatred that characterises just about every other online forum. And as the moderators have not seen fit to trample on the fun it seems reasonable to assume that the hamsters are relatively happy with the way things have turned out whatever the initial vision may suggest to the contrary. In any case I'm really not convinced that we need any kind of crass censorship at this point in the evolution of this forum.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes you can be of the opinion that "attacks" against any religion is a common property. Ok, think about next when it comes to your Family/personal. Where is the line?
So it is better:
Lounge remains better free of religion / politics, etc.
The rest may be in Soap box, planned to be free and to publish things like this ... so far what I understand.
Even SoapBox should have a Limit (Family/personal/also religion).
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
9082365 wrote: And if you're suggesting that respect involves never disagreeing with anyone over anything and never saying a bad word,
IMO, that's quite a stretch to get there.
9082365 wrote: whatever the initial vision may suggest to the contrary.
You're wording seems to indicate that the rules do not need to be followed. If they are not, then there will be no point in coming here again. It is because of the rules that makes this site great. Don't screw it up suggesting that the rules can evolve with us.
No religion, no politics. Very simple to understand. Go to the soapbox if you want to share that stuff. Too simple to understand.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: You're wording seems to indicate that the rules do not need to be followed.
Who's stretching now?
As far as not originating posts on politics or religion in the Lounge goes you're preaching to the converted. Never have, never likely to. The original post, at least as I read it, goes a way beyond that however.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
9082365 wrote: Who's stretching now?
Quote: probably only ever intended as guidelines not statutes
Quote: last revised in 2011 and featuring areas of the site that haven't even been in use since April of last year
Quote: And as the moderators have not seen fit to trample on the fun it seems reasonable to assume that the hamsters are relatively happy with the way things have turned out whatever the initial vision may suggest to the contrary.
Quote: in the evolution of this forum.
I misunderstood?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: I misunderstood?
On so many levels!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
OK.
9082365 wrote: On so many levels!
OT. What the heck is that supposed to even mean? What levels? How many exactly? What are some examples of levels here?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Even I maybe do not understand all the Details, I will agree on the main.
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Grow a pair.
Decrease the belief in God, and you increase the numbers of those who wish to play at being God by being “society’s supervisors,” who deny the existence of divine standards, but are very serious about imposing their own standards on society.-Neal A. Maxwell
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
Remember who threw the first blow.
Coated in honey or strait up, poison's usually prone to have the same effect.
If someone starts to preach to you some rather religious sentiment then it's quite an invasion. It's likely your part of some majority religious group - but many here are not. Very much so with our international flavor. Implicitly, if you preach your religion to someone of another then you're calling their beliefs wrong. And hence the reference, in my opening line, to "the first blow".
So - every now and then someone goes preachy-evangelical on CP (and everywhere else). It's preaching and belongs in the Soapbox. And you take your chances with the reaction, in any case.
Imposing one's religious beliefs upon others is more than a little bit rude. That's why theocracies suck (or haven't you noticed?).
So, to whomever is feeling a bit evangelical - find a site with like-minded people and preach to them if you want a pat on the back for it. Here - we have our own context.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: Remember who threw the first blow.
Remember who blew the first throw.
Mea culpa, Bill
«The truth is a snare: you cannot have it, without being caught. You cannot have the truth in such a way that you catch it, but only in such a way that it catches you.» Soren Kierkegaard
|
|
|
|
|
I am surprised by some of the negative responses. I really didn't expect anyone to have a problem being reminded what the rules are. Well, there is one negative response that I did expect, but because he's had beers with the owner of CP he gets a free pass. 
I like what you said. Simple, to the point, and a nice reminder for people to behave. 
Ignore the haters. There will always be some.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I was admittedly a bit surprised myself. Typically when you see posts of this nature, there's one or two replies to the effect of 'Take it to the Soapbox', and that's the end of it. Not so much the case this time...
I wanted to join in on a couple of them, but thought better of it. If it had been in the Soapbox I wouldn't have held back.
I guess some of us just have better self control than others.
|
|
|
|
|
I was surprised when I saw them too.
For a moment I wanted to say "take it to the Soapbox" but then I remembered I'm not that kind of guy (I always roll my eyes when I read that, but nobody sees that as I'm alone behind my computer).
Then I noticed no one said anything about it.
And I must confess I then joined in the festivities 
By the way, I don't think disagreeing with someone or their beliefs is disrespectful (not even when it's about politics or religion).
I do think a lot of people are easily offended though, which kind of makes anything you say disrespectful (and which explains rule #4).
For example, some might find this post disrespectful (and for the record, it's not meant to be).
|
|
|
|
|
My post was never meant to offend anyone; I called out both sides for their lack of restraint, but, in doing so, it seems the primary offenders were offended for being called out.
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Carmichael wrote: My post was never meant to offend anyone
I can't see how it would be offending 
Tim Carmichael wrote: it seems the primary offenders were offended
Because when you are offended you can't be wrong
|
|
|
|
|
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
6000 Match Chain Reaction - Amazing Fire Domino!!! - YouTube[^]
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! A true firewall...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, somebody's easily pleased. This[^] is an amazing fire chain reaction!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
Also, in the Mythbuster vein 1 million matchs burnt[^].
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
My mother told me not to play with matches. In the summer of 1955, I and a friend (yes, I was 12 years old at the time, and I am an antique), set the dry summer woods in Gainesville, Florida on fire as we burned an old radio to see if anything would explode. I got to see fire-trucks and firemen; I was really enjoying it all until my father came home and applied his belt to my backside as many times as I deserved, which was quite a few. I guess I was just born for science.
cheers, Bill
«The truth is a snare: you cannot have it, without being caught. You cannot have the truth in such a way that you catch it, but only in such a way that it catches you.» Soren Kierkegaard
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
