Banjo Hangout Logo
Banjo Hangout Logo

Premier Sponsors

441
Banjo Lovers Online


Discussion Forum

Want to hide these Google ads? Join the Players Union!

 All Forums
 Other Topics
 Off-Topic (Not Banjo Related)
 ARCHIVED TOPIC: Good topics gone


Please note this is an archived topic, so it is locked and unable to be replied to. You may, however, start a new topic and refer to this topic with a link: http://www.banjohangout.org/archive/356979

Page: 1  2  

steve davis - Posted - 09/15/2019:  13:58:58


It's too bad good topics like food safety,prioritizing well-being and empathy can't be discussed without going over the edge.

OldNavyGuy - Posted - 09/15/2019:  14:12:58


It's not so much the topic, but who is involved discussing it, and how they manage to work their own personal agendas into the discussion.



The usual suspects...



 


Edited by - OldNavyGuy on 09/15/2019 14:14:08

steve davis - Posted - 09/15/2019:  14:22:16


I like eating the seafood from right here.I never worry about its origin or quality.

Owen - Posted - 09/15/2019:  14:25:26


...  I wish I could [reliably] figure out where the edge is.    


Edited by - Owen on 09/15/2019 14:29:34

Bill Rogers - Posted - 09/15/2019:  15:14:24


Shutting down a topic is always a judgment call, but most of the time it’s based on a cumulative sense of comments and the general tenor.of the discussion. Less common is locking a topic for a blatant rule-breaking post. So, yeah, knowing where that “edge” falls is at best a thoughtful guess.

Texasbanjo - Posted - 09/15/2019:  15:23:48


The edge can be where rule breaking comes in, either in the form of politics or religion or flaming. And, as Bill said, if rule breaking continues , then eventually we have no choice but to lock a thread.

Owen - Posted - 09/15/2019:  15:39:06


quote:

Originally posted by Bill Rogers

<snip> ... So, yeah, knowing where that “edge” falls is at best a thoughtful guess.






Thanks, Bill. I assume I'm safe in assuming that you're not interested in my ideas of how the "guessing" could be reduced.   wink

OldNavyGuy - Posted - 09/15/2019:  15:48:25


Seems pretty clear...

banjohangout.org/forum/rules.asp

chuckv97 - Posted - 09/15/2019:  16:16:06


Guess I shouldn’t have mentioned the American Indian in the Paternity Leave thread..... ;-)

banjo bill-e - Posted - 09/15/2019:  16:33:10


Usual suspect, checking in. Apologies to Jim and Steve for my part in going over the edge, truly not my intention. I don't have an agenda to advance, but I do have strong views and I am passionalte about the state of the world that we are leaving our children. I mean, it's too late in the game for me to be personally affected by these issues, but I can't help but care.
But as to Owen's question about just where that edge is, well, to me it is not political if not talking for or against any party or politician or specific proposed measure, etc.
I would think that we could discuss historical worldwide movements such as socialism and capitalism without that being considered "political". I consider such questions to be philosophical. But I'm not a mod, and I do thank the mods for doing a difficult job. I will try to not make your job any more difficult.

Bill Rogers - Posted - 09/15/2019:  16:34:02


quote:

Originally posted by Owen

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Rogers

... So, yeah, knowing where that “edge” falls is at best a thoughtful guess.






Thanks, Bill. I assume I'm safe in assuming that you're not interested in my ideas of how the "guessing" could be reduced.   wink






Sure, post them in Improvements and Suggestions. Be specific. 

Owen - Posted - 09/15/2019:  16:36:29


quote:

Originally posted by OldNavyGuy

Seems pretty clear...



banjohangout.org/forum/rules.asp






Okay, Jim, I notice Sherry has hidden a couple of rule-breaking posts in the "Golden Opportunity" thread  banjohangout.org/topic/356939   



Would you mind cluing/clueing (?) me in as to the specific rule(s) that were broken, and the the gist of the offending posts?   If I could actually see that, I'd be able to find the "edge" with more reliability.



Edit: Been there, done that, Bill ... as well as having personal exchanges with you and Sherry.    


Edited by - Owen on 09/15/2019 16:44:12

OldNavyGuy - Posted - 09/15/2019:  16:43:29


quote:

Originally posted by Owen

quote:

Originally posted by OldNavyGuy

Seems pretty clear...



banjohangout.org/forum/rules.asp






Okay, Jim, I notice Sherry has hidden a couple of rule-breaking posts in the "Golden Opportunity" thread  banjohangout.org/topic/356939   



Would you mind cluing/clueing (?) me in as to the specific rule(s) that were broken, and the the gist of the offending posts?   If I could actually see that, I'd be able to find the "edge" with more reliability.






PM Sherry.



 

Owen - Posted - 09/15/2019:  16:48:22


Jim, if the rules [and their application] were as clear as you feel they are, then I'd see the stuff and wouldn't have to ask anybody... it would be there in plain view.     You're the  one saying they "seem pretty clear,"  why don't you give me the low down?

OldNavyGuy - Posted - 09/15/2019:  16:53:48


quote:

Originally posted by Owen

Jim, if the rules [and their application] were as clear as you feel they are, then I'd see the stuff and wouldn't have to ask anybody... it would be there in plain view.     You're the  one saying they "seem pretty clear,"  why don't you give me the low down?






I don't know which posts were hidden.



The majority of posters here seem to be pretty clear on what the rules are, don't ask where the "edge is", and don't get their posts removed, or their accounts locked.



 





 


Edited by - OldNavyGuy on 09/15/2019 16:56:25

donc - Posted - 09/15/2019:  17:01:23


The outcome of some posts are as predictable as gravity. It amazes me how some posts get as far as page 2.

Bill Rogers - Posted - 09/15/2019:  17:02:46


Sherry hid a couple of scatalogical posts which clearly violated BHO Rules #s 2 and/or 3, which are clear. The edge in both cases was a bright line.

OldNavyGuy - Posted - 09/15/2019:  17:03:14


quote:

Originally posted by donc

The outcome of some posts are as predictable as gravity. It amazes me how some posts get as far as page 2.






I've seen mods give multiple warnings, and the warnings are ignored.



 

Owen - Posted - 09/15/2019:  17:07:44


I was following the Golden Opportunity thread and I don't know which posts were hidden... that's not "pretty clear" in my books.   



Over the years, I've had a couple of posts hidden and/or edited [because my computer skills were lacking, and I inadvertently put up a wrong link], and have never had my account locked. I don't see how those things help me see where the edge is.... and I'm not expecting a knife-edge, but "in the ballpark" would be appreciated.  [...or, do you suppose, like I've wondered before, maybe I really am as "thick as pig ****. "]   



Now, I'm not saying I can't ever tell... just that I can't reliably tell.  That's kinda like knowing a guy lies half the time... all I have to do is figure out which side of the line it's on.  Easy-peasy... or in other words,  "seem pretty clear."!



I know it's not against any specific rule, but I'd like to see a rule reigning in guys whose primary objective  seems to  be to be annoying bozos.



Edit: Bill it would be nice if I could see it for myself, and not have to take somebody else's word for it.  ...and in the long run I think that would reduce the mods' workloads.   I acknowledge that posts might be so egregious they demand immediate removal.  A mod's note making note of this and the subsequent suspension meted out would get things under control fairly quickly, [and in plain view], no?   I'm not computer literate enough to offer any suggestions re. the suspended guys who create new accounts.


Edited by - Owen on 09/15/2019 17:19:44

Bill Rogers - Posted - 09/15/2019:  17:13:31


Well, we’re not going to leave up posts with potty- mouth language or sexual references. And we do banish serial trolls regularly. Some come back with new names and are locked out again. No bright-line rule needed for that.

OldNavyGuy - Posted - 09/15/2019:  17:32:03


quote:

Originally posted by Owen



Edit: Bill it would be nice if I could see it for myself, and not have to take somebody else's word for it.  ...and in the long run I think that would reduce the mods' workloads. 



A mod's note making note of this and the subsequent suspension meted out would get things under control fairly quickly, [and in plain view], no?






That would increase the mods' "workloads"...not reduce it.



I trust the mods' will do the right thing, and taking the mods' word for it is good enough for me.



I may not always agree, but it's the "house rules".



I pretty much know when I cross the line...when things start getting "personal", I do have a tendency to respond in kind.



But every possibility doesn't need to be codified in the rules.


Edited by - OldNavyGuy on 09/15/2019 17:38:05

Owen - Posted - 09/15/2019:  18:02:31


Jim, I agree it would increase initially, but I think it wouldn't be too, too long before guys would see the standard, with an ensuing significant  and long-lasting reduction in the workload.   [Admittedly, I say that, never having been a moderator, and thus without knowing the minutiae of the job.]



And I'm all for reduced codifying in the rules... one rule: "be respectful" would cover a lot of territory.    And once people could see where the mods were drawing the line.... ah... you know the rest...

OldNavyGuy - Posted - 09/15/2019:  18:03:53


quote:

Originally posted by Owen


I'm not expecting a knife-edge, but "in the ballpark" would be appreciated.  [...or, do you suppose, like I've wondered before, maybe I really am as "thick as pig ****. "]  






Bill mentioned "scatalogical" references, and your asterisked pig reference is an example.



This has become a popular technique on forums (not just BHO) to say the word...without saying the word (note: some forum software will add the asterisks automatically if it thinks the word is NSFF - not suitable for forums).



Some make it a little more obvious by adding the "clue letters" to the beginning, and ending of the asterisks.



So just because the "actual word" wasn't used, doesn't mean it can't be figured out, when placed in context.



Another technique to being "clever" is using slang terms the poster thinks no one will ever notice, or understand the meaning.



Google is your best friend in finding out what a term means.









 


Edited by - OldNavyGuy on 09/15/2019 18:13:55

OldNavyGuy - Posted - 09/15/2019:  18:09:29


quote:

Originally posted by Owen


one rule: "be respectful" would cover a lot of territory.   



It's already there...



Courteous Communication

Communicating on the Web in an all-text medium is a challenge, and it's always good to think twice before you hit that "Post" button. Realize that each time you reply, you're replying to a real person, with real feelings just like yourself. Try to write messages that cannot be easily misunderstood or misconstrued to mean something you didn't mean. And please, please use descriptive subject lines when you post a new topic!



Pretty clear when someone is not being respectful...either online or in real-life.



 

Owen - Posted - 09/15/2019:  18:17:05


Okay, Jim, you say that sometimes you tend to "respond in kind,"  i.e. take your cue from something that's been posted.   What's the diff when I take a cue [eg. the asterisked pig  ****]? ... am I not simply taking my cue from stuff that's previously been accepted in  the posts, and  using the standard that's in plain view? 



If it was a no-no, then wouldn't the mods would warn me ... along with the dozens (?) of others that do similarly?    I've got no real problem with any rule, so long as it's judiciously and evenly applied... and it surely would help me to see how things are being done, 'though I acknowledge that they don't get much lower on the totem pole than I am. 



Edit: Point taken re. courteous communication, thanks.  Which raises the point of the "annoying bozos" I previously mentioned...and their posts that are anything but courteous or respectful, and thus break that rule left, right and center. 



Edit #2: any thoughts about my idea of short term pain [more work initially ] for long term gain [less work in the long run]? .


Edited by - Owen on 09/15/2019 18:29:20

Disco Kid - Posted - 09/15/2019:  21:47:19


There is always the option to agree to disagree and move on. You're not going to change the minds of a bunch of ol' coots that have established priorities and views of the world.



So ingrained in fact that very smart people will support the most vile leaders because they are the party of choice or to advance an agenda.



Save your breath, time and sanity. Get your 10 cents in and go pick a spell.


Edited by - Disco Kid on 09/15/2019 22:03:41

Bill Rogers - Posted - 09/16/2019:  00:30:09


Sometimes I think some members forget the mods are volunteers, working on their own time as it’s available. We don’t have the time to do all that some would like....Nor are we going to publicly name names or detail the reasoning behind each hidden post or locked topic. Speaking for myself, I’m happy to entertain questions in PMs—but you may not get the answer you want.

m06 - Posted - 09/16/2019:  01:06:48


I agree that interesting subjects for discussion that are not overtly political get shut down too often.

The simple answer is to delete the individual posts that deliberately or accidentally stray into overt political comment instead of locking a thread an penalising those who can discuss without overstepping BHO rules.

Sure we know the mods are volunteers and mostly do a good job. But there is also not understanding or respecting the difference between aspects of society and everyday life that affect us all and political partisanship.

Agendas? Old Navy Guy, to some extent we all have those. Including you. A freelance 'policer' who complains the loudest and longest just exposes himself as someone who doesn't like the opinions expressed and doesn't want them expressed. But diversity of viewpoint is both inevitable and healthy. It is actually the unsolicited and obsessive policing that turns legitimate difference into an 'issue'.

Bill Rogers - Posted - 09/16/2019:  01:24:00


Two problems with your suggestion. 1) available time 2) threads get locked for reasons other than deleteable posts. The overall tenor of a thread may lead to locking. Threads that generate too many questionable posts get locked because we don’t have the time to pick through every post. In your case, Mike, sometimes cultural differences between the U.S. and U.K. lead to differences of opinion on what’s permissible.... Now, I’m going to get some sleep.

m06 - Posted - 09/16/2019:  01:40:21


I'm sure Old Navy Guy will throw up his arms and believe my comment about viewpoint above is another example of 'agenda'.



Let me illustrate quite clearly and definitively how that false accusation arises and manifests:



The recently locked thread on empathy was roundly accused of an 'agenda'. Entirely on his own account, as is his habit (and unchecked by moderation) Old Navy Guy 'policed' the posts which he found contrary to his viewpoint. In his post above he refers to the 'agendas' of others that give rise to those viewpoints he singlehandedly 'polices'. Yet in the empathy thread a moderator, Bill, posted that one of the American members (Latigo1) had lied in his post about the universality of US health care. Did Old Navy Guy 'police' Latigo1's post and accuse Latigo1 of having an agenda? No. Why? Because it was a viewpoint that was in accord with his own and therefore did not offend his personal sensibilities. But personal sensibilities are not rules and only moderators are entitled to moderate. That is a rule,



I'm sure Old Navy Guy is a nice guy, someone I would happily buy a beer and wish him the best as he undergoes treatment for his health condition. But we should all be very wary of people who with no mandate act as unsolicited online or offline 'police'. For what they are 'policing' are not the rules but simply views that differ from their own. And worse, the people who hold those views. And that is transparent bias posing as decency. And when we don't respect difference we are divisive.



Ironically in terms of freedom of speech that is ,to my understanding, actually un-American. It is certainly un-English.


Edited by - m06 on 09/16/2019 01:51:16

m06 - Posted - 09/16/2019:  01:59:41


quote:

Originally posted by Bill Rogers

Two problems with your suggestion. 1) available time 2) threads get locked for reasons other than deleteable posts. The overall tenor of a thread may lead to locking. Threads that generate too many questionable posts get locked because we don’t have the time to pick through every post. In your case, Mike, sometimes cultural differences between the U.S. and U.K. lead to differences of opinion on what’s permissible.... Now, I’m going to get some sleep.






Yet 1) was used quite reasonably in the Golden Opportunity thread and avoided an unnecessary and heavy-handed lock of a potentially humorous thread.



If 2) is referring to flaming, then again those individual rule-breaking posts can also be deleted and those doing the flaming given due warning to desist. No reason to lock the thread.



Moderation obviously involves reading the posts so the one-click action of deletion should not add unduly to the time it takes.


Edited by - m06 on 09/16/2019 02:01:08

m06 - Posted - 09/16/2019:  03:16:00


quote:

Originally posted by OldNavyGuy

It's not so much the topic, but who is involved discussing it, and how they manage to work their own personal agendas into the discussion.



The usual suspects...



 






^^^



Here it is in Old Navy Guy’s own words: it’s not the topic; it’s the viewpoints and specific people HE doesn’t agree with.



Admission of guilt doesn’t come any clearer than when the person voluntarily blurts his own bogus ‘criteria’ for public scrutiny. 



We refer to that as ‘hung by your own petard’.


Edited by - m06 on 09/16/2019 03:28:15

m06 - Posted - 09/16/2019:  03:49:06


In other words:



There is a topic designated as 'acceptable', but unless you express views on that topic that accord with Old Navy Guy you have an 'agenda' and are a 'suspect'.



Does Old Navy Guy harbour a desire to have lived in Chile under General Pinochet? Because that's how that regime did things. It's certainly not how we do things in a free country.


Edited by - m06 on 09/16/2019 03:56:38

Texasbanjo - Posted - 09/16/2019:  04:46:17


Owen If you disapprove of the way we moderate, either take it up with us or Eric. Posting your complaints about our moderating is against the rules. Here's the rule:

Posts Questioning a Moderator's Specific Actions: If you disagree with a moderator's actions, contact them or the site owner (Eric Schlange at eric@banjohangout.org). Please note that discussion of overall site policies is allowed, and should generally be placed in the "Improvements and Suggestions" forum.

OldNavyGuy - Posted - 09/16/2019:  08:14:00


quote:

Originally posted by m06

quote:

Originally posted by OldNavyGuy

It's not so much the topic, but who is involved discussing it, and how they manage to work their own personal agendas into the discussion.



The usual suspects...



 






^^^



Here it is in Old Navy Guy’s own words: it’s not the topic; it’s the viewpoints and specific people HE doesn’t agree with.



Admission of guilt doesn’t come any clearer than when the person voluntarily blurts his own bogus ‘criteria’ for public scrutiny. 



We refer to that as ‘hung by your own petard’.






Said usual suspect # 2...



Let's get the context straight...



The thread is titled "Good topics gone"



Why?



It's who is involved discussing the topic, and how they work their own personal agendas into the discussion...wait for it...that derail threads, and get them locked for rule-breaking.



Moderators lock threads and accounts...members don't.



You already know that from experience.



 



 



 


Edited by - OldNavyGuy on 09/16/2019 08:24:19

OldNavyGuy - Posted - 09/16/2019:  08:40:56


quote:

Originally posted by m06



The recently locked thread on empathy was roundly accused of an 'agenda'. Entirely on his own account, as is his habit (and unchecked by moderation) Old Navy Guy 'policed' the posts which he found contrary to his viewpoint.






I didn't follow that thread, or post in it...so your statements are not based on fact (no surprise).



If anyone clicks on "Report post", it's up to the mods to decide.



I did scroll through, and saw a mod warning well before it was locked.



Looks like the mod was "policing" it.



 



 



 

Owen - Posted - 09/16/2019:  10:18:31


Sherry, the way I read the rule is that "Members are prohibited from posting... posts questioning a moderator's specific actions..."   I don't see where I've broken the rule. 



From what I can see, my transgression is posting general commentary on how discussions are moderated in this thread, rather than in "Suggestions and improvements"... just as at least 5 others have done.



I think I do a pretty fair job at keeping my posts respectful. I don't agree with the rationale that simply because two "sides" are entrenched, commentary should be curtailed.  Even using the context of "repeating the same thing and expecting different results" doesn't apply, because I don't really think the results will change in the foreseeable future. I guess my thinking is more along the lines of "where there's life, there's hope."



 

m06 - Posted - 09/16/2019:  10:40:45


quote:

Originally posted by OldNavyGuy

quote:

Originally posted by m06



The recently locked thread on empathy was roundly accused of an 'agenda'. Entirely on his own account, as is his habit (and unchecked by moderation) Old Navy Guy 'policed' the posts which he found contrary to his viewpoint.






I didn't follow that thread, or post in it...so your statements are not based on fact (no surprise).



If anyone clicks on "Report post", it's up to the mods to decide.



I did scroll through, and saw a mod warning well before it was locked.



Looks like the mod was "policing" it.






Here is a link to the thread I was referring to including Latigo1's post, Bill's reply and your involvement.



banjohangout.org/topic/356938



 



Here 


Edited by - m06 on 09/16/2019 10:57:22

m06 - Posted - 09/16/2019:  11:03:35


quote:

Originally posted by OldBlindGuy

Please check your link...

you linked to the paternity leave thread, rather than the empathy thread.






The theme of both recent threads was empathy and wellbeing. I clearly and specifically referred in my comments above to the thread that included Latigo1's post, and Bill's reply indicating that the content of Latigo1's post was untruthful.



So I have shared the correct and relevant link.

OldBlindGuy - Posted - 09/16/2019:  11:15:06


ONG is quite right stating that he did not post in the empathy thread, but your response seems to allude to him being untruthful.


Edited by - OldBlindGuy on 09/16/2019 11:25:23

Texasbanjo - Posted - 09/16/2019:  11:21:22


Mike and OldNavyGuy it doesn't matter whether one of you is right or wrong, if you're going to argue with each other, take it OFF the Hangout.

m06 - Posted - 09/16/2019:  12:50:06


Sherry, I’m not arguing and it has nothing to do with being ‘right’. It has to do with being referred to in this thread in derogatory ad hominem terms and subject to evident discrimination by another member who receives no sanction whatsoever for consistently posing as moderator. As I have shown by quoting that member’s post above...



...which are all behaviours contrary to posting rules. So back to you from ‘suspect #2’. smiley


Edited by - m06 on 09/16/2019 12:59:07

OldNavyGuy - Posted - 09/16/2019:  13:30:25


quote:

Originally posted by m06

Sherry, I’m not arguing and it has nothing to do with being ‘right’. It has to do with being referred to in this thread in derogatory ad hominem terms and subject to evident discrimination by another member who receives no sanction whatsoever for consistently posing as moderator. As I have shown by quoting that member’s post above...



...which are all behaviours contrary to posting rules. So back to you from ‘suspect #2’. smiley






Speaking of getting something right, it's not Old Navy Guy, it's OldNavyGuy, ....one word.



Make sure you understand the distinction when reporting my posts.

Texasbanjo - Posted - 09/16/2019:  14:13:16


m06 You just have to have the last word, don't you? Frankly, I haven't read any derogatory terms and perhaps you are too sensitive to be on the internet? If you want to continue to tell me how I should moderate, please do it off the Hangout.

m06 - Posted - 09/16/2019:  14:26:13


And yet you had the 20:20 vision to publicly call me out and deleted my post in the thread under discussion for what you saw as ‘sarcasm’. Mild and indirect by comparison to direct ad hominem posts from old navy guy. Don’t you agree?



To what can we attribute the evident selectivity in regard to what you choose to ‘see’. It is very puzzling how there appears to be a double standard at work.



That’s a genuine and perfectly reasonable question given what I have clearly evidenced in this thread above.


Edited by - m06 on 09/16/2019 14:29:05

m06 - Posted - 09/16/2019:  14:37:09


quote:

Originally posted by OldNavyGuy

quote:

Originally posted by m06

Sherry, I’m not arguing and it has nothing to do with being ‘right’. It has to do with being referred to in this thread in derogatory ad hominem terms and subject to evident discrimination by another member who receives no sanction whatsoever for consistently posing as moderator. As I have shown by quoting that member’s post above...



...which are all behaviours contrary to posting rules. So back to you from ‘suspect #2’. smiley






Speaking of getting something right, it's not Old Navy Guy, it's OldNavyGuy, ....one word.



Make sure you understand the distinction when reporting my posts.






Old navy guy you have no position whatsoever to rudely and arrogantly insist on anything from me or anyone else here. 



Beats me why you would think for even one second that you do, or that anyone takes your self appointed role as freelance forum stalker and faux-‘moderatior’ seriously or that your strange and obsessive posturing is anything other than a case of morbid self-importance gone to the bad.


Edited by - m06 on 09/16/2019 14:51:58

Bill Rogers - Posted - 09/16/2019:  18:23:25


The dialog between ONG and m06 belongs off-list. Please take it there. For all posters: that is precisely the sort of thing that gets topics locked. It’s become a personal dispute and that’s a rule violation.

figmo59 - Posted - 09/17/2019:  01:30:45


I post what I find I teresting..or possibly imformahtive..

If a mod deems it..not fit fer the bho..well that is thier job to make that call..
No reason to git me knickers inah knot over it..
I 3xcept the ..fuzzy .. lines..of the calls..


However..imo..I have seen many posters use the rules ..in bad faith..to get a thread locked..

Childish imo..

Honest opinion is a differnt thing...assyoumeing....we can act as...Adults.... :0/


Comes down to respect of each other....or the..lack ..of it..........

m06 - Posted - 09/17/2019:  01:47:23


quote:

Originally posted by figmo59



Comes down to respect of each other....or the..lack ..of it..........






Exactly. Including respect for what is different or contrary to our own viewpoint.



And respect is symbiotic with empathy. Empathy does not and cannot exist without respect and the principle  of equal consideration.



That is why the rise of overt and vitriolic partisanship that we are witnessing globally diminishes empathy and replaces it with divisiveness.



We can also witness that what is a macro phenomenon also influences and toxically infects behaviours and intolerant attitudes at the micro level.



We are currently being culturally influenced to believe, wrongly, that difference is 'suspect' and must be barred or removed. It is not; difference and diversity are healthy signs of a free society. smiley


Edited by - m06 on 09/17/2019 01:55:02

Owen - Posted - 09/17/2019:  06:35:11


 

Originally posted by m06

<snip> We can also witness that what is a macro phenomenon also influences and toxically infects behaviours and intolerant attitudes at the micro level. <snip>


Ya really think so??  [Just kiddin', just kiddin'... and furthermore, about 1/3 of the words you're using have more than 4 letters!!]  yes




 

Page: 1  2  

Hangout Network Help

View All Topics  |  View Categories

0.109375