I Miss Boem...

All this negative talk about gout has me concerned the moderators might lock the thread.

"

Turtledove wrote:

All this negative talk about gout has me concerned the moderators might lock the thread.

You mean Boem. He ate the steak I served. Don Corleone's steak isn't exactly healthy. Collateral Damage is unfortunate but probably has occurred. When the message is blocked, consequently it fall on someone else. Thus the mentally toll on their well being. But I don't see how he could evaluate its content without reading it.

That warning message probably isn't for Secert Agent 009, that is specifically for me.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Peace,

Impeacher

You missed the hyphens. He always had hyphens, for some reason.

Peace,

-Exile009-

"

Exile009 wrote:

You missed the hyphens. He always had hyphens, for some reason.

Peace,

-Exile009-

You are now behaving in a way that arouses suspicion. Are you really Secert Agent 009 or someone else?

"

Exile009 wrote:

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

I consider the general implication of “hey, if you want to use this free website we made to talk about our free game, go ahead, we just ask you to follow these few simple rules if you’re going to be here” to be pretty polite.

Yeah it's 'polite' in the same way Don Corleone was polite lol. The only reason it's treated differently is cos the stakes are lower. But fundamentally it's still the same form of 'politeness'. Ironically the other guy, who I've already said I suspect is trying to bait me, said it more honestly -

"

a mix message consisting of a request, a warning and a threat.

Amen.

More honestly meaning more in agreement with your ideas. Different to you isn't dishonest.

I don't consider polite to mean spineless and having no say in one's affairs.

I don't consider a mafia boss's veiled threats polite. There's nothing polite about the implication that he might kill your family if you say the wrong thing or whatever. You say the only reason it's polite is that the stakes are lower, and that it's otherwise fundamentally the same, but I think the stakes are fundamentally different, not just different by degree. GGG has created something and is setting boundaries on its use. They aren't reaching beyond that into things that aren't theirs and inflicting harm. I see those as substantially different categories of request.

can't say i miss him ending his comments with peace boem every time glad he's gone

Who do you think appropriate to restrict your online activity (and how) ?

"

finisterre wrote:

Who do you think appropriate to restrict your online activity (and how) ?

Spoiler

So, who/how to blame ?

I think it would be appropriate for a parent to restrict their young child's online activity in general.

Another example, I think it is appropriate for law enforcement to restrict child pornography online activities.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

finisterre wrote:

Who do you think appropriate to restrict your online activity (and how) ?

Spoiler

So, who/how to blame ?

I think it would be appropriate for a parent to restrict their young child's online activity in general.

Another example, I think it is appropriate for law enforcement to restrict child pornography online activities.

If you had "the rationale of a decision by the legal entity" in mind, that makes sense.

The problem of "one-sided activity" is about being "one-sided" rather than "activity", isn't it ? (for example, one-sided trust)

removed