[ClayRock]

----

[7]

No. This is perfectly acceptable, as I've been made to understand.

[leucetios]

My understanding, and someone should correct me if I am wrong, is that it starts to qualify as a candidate for deletion (or a SPAM forum ) when it becomes prohibitive.

[leeman]

Originally posted by leucetios@Oct 21 2004, 06:59 PM
[b]prohibitive.

[snapback]91293[/snapback]

[/b]

:blink:

In swedish palese (ps?)

[ClayRock]

Originally posted by leucetios@Oct 21 2004, 11:59 AM
My understanding, and someone should correct me if I am wrong, is that it starts to qualify as a candidate for deletion (or a SPAM forum ) when it becomes [b]prohibitive.

[snapback]91293[/snapback]

[/b]

leu, i'm a pot smoker, i don't understand big words

[leucetios]

Its cool. I had to look it up before using to make sure I was using the right word:

pro·hib·i·tive
adj.

1. Prohibiting; forbidding: took prohibitive measures.
2. So high or burdensome as to discourage purchase or use: prohibitive prices.
3. So likely to win as to discourage competition: the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination

[7]

Originally posted by leucetios@Oct 21 2004, 05:59 PM
.....or a SPAM forum.....

[snapback]91293[/snapback]

So I'm getting my own forum after all? Sweet.

[7]

Originally posted by leucetios@Oct 21 2004, 06:02 PM
Its cool.  I had to look it up before using to make sure I was using the right word:

pro·hib·i·tive   
adj. 

1. Prohibiting; forbidding: took prohibitive measures.
2. [b]So high or burdensome as to discourage purchase or use: prohibitive prices.
3. So likely to win as to discourage competition: the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination

[snapback]91298[/snapback]

[/b]

Aha! A rule change. Cool.

[leucetios]

Originally posted by 7@Oct 21 2004, 09:03 AM
Aha!  A rule change.  Cool.

[snapback]91302[/snapback]

I'm not sure it is a rule change. I am trying to interpret something lee said in another thread - hence my invitation for clarification. We acknowledged that 90% of what we post here is idle and could be qualified as spam, making the working definition for spam, as in the rules of the board, rely more on a quantification of the offending posts than just post quality.

[7]

Originally posted by leucetios@Oct 21 2004, 06:09 PM
I'm not sure it is a rule change.  I am trying to interpret something lee said in another thread - hence my invitation for clarification.  We acknowledged that 90% of what we post here is idle and could be qualified as spam, making the working definition for spam, as in the rules of the board, rely more on a quantification of the offending posts than just post quality.

[snapback]91307[/snapback]

[Charon]

What the fuck are you talking about ???

[CodeWarrior]

Originally posted by 7@Oct 21 2004, 01:13 PM

[snapback]91309[/snapback]

RaCk

[leucetios]

Originally posted by 7@Oct 21 2004, 09:13 AM

[snapback]91309[/snapback]

Heh. Nice. Took me a second.

I didn't consider it twisting. There has to be a definition right?

I don't actually agree with you that any nonsensical post is spam. So let me ask you this.

How do you define spam?


EDIT: To further clarify. Everything has to be defined. For example:

- do we delete child porn with only children, or people who look underage?
- does no personal info include not posting your own?
- what defines hardcore porn? penetration? cum shots?

[asshat]

Originally posted by leucetios@Oct 21 2004, 08:01 PM

How do you define spam?

[snapback]91457[/snapback]

a spicy ham packaged in a handy dandy 12-ounce can.

[leucetios]

Originally posted by asshat@Oct 21 2004, 11:05 AM
a spicy ham packaged in a handy dandy 12-ounce can.

[snapback]91463[/snapback]

And there'lll be none of that on this board :angry:

[asshat]

Originally posted by leucetios@Oct 21 2004, 08:01 PM
Heh. Nice. Took me a second.

I didn't consider it twisting.  There has to be a definition right?

I don't actually agree with you that any nonsensical post is spam.  So let me ask you this.

How do you define spam?
EDIT: To further clarify.  Everything has to be defined.  For example:

- do we delete child porn with only children, or people who look underage?
- does no personal info include not posting your own?
- what defines hardcore porn?  penetration? cum shots?

[snapback]91457[/snapback]

Why must we nitpick this bullshit to death. who cares about the intricacies of the fine lines that define any of this stuff? does it really make a fuck?

[leucetios]

Originally posted by asshat@Oct 21 2004, 11:08 AM
Why must we nitpick this bullshit to death.  who cares about the intricacies of the fine lines that define any of this stuff?  does it really make a fuck?

[snapback]91469[/snapback]

I don't really care.

7 cares, I think, because he "doesn't want this place to turn into UJ". He's nitpicking to prove a point - he knows what he did constitues spam more than anything else we normally see here, but he is trying to prove a point. If he wants to work it over until its dead then I will. For something to be regulated (which it must be if there are rules, and there are rules) then it has to be defined.

With a clear, non-subjective definition, then mod's opinions can't come into play and what is moderated will be more consistent and not biased. I appreciate where is trying to go, he just isn't doing it very clearly (point in case: your post asking why we have to nitpick it)

[asshat]

Originally posted by leucetios@Oct 21 2004, 08:13 PM
I don't really care.

7 cares, I think,  because he "doesn't want this place to turn into UJ".  He's nitpicking to prove a point - he knows what he did constitues spam more than anything else we normally see here, but he is trying to prove a point.  If he wants to work it over until its dead then I will.  For something to be regulated (which it must be if there are rules, and there are rules) then it has to be defined.

With a clear, non-subjective definition, then mod's opinions can't come into play and what is moderated will be more consistent and not biased.  I appreciate where is trying to go, he just isn't doing it very clearly (point in case: your post asking why we have to nitpick it)

[snapback]91478[/snapback]

I know, but surely people are wise enough to know that no rule can be put into place and it be iron clad and unforgiving. It is not possible and for most people it is not expected. I have known the one or two examples of people that come along every so often that want to challenge every form of authority. Any logical breath is wasted on them.

1. No running in the pool area. But I had to go to the bathroom. Or what happens if someone has a heart attack and you have to run to get them. Or what happens if a Lifeguard sees someone hit their head on the edge of the pool and has to run to their aid. Blah Blah Blah Blah Fucking Blah. Rules don't apply to everybody the same! You get special treatment! Why him and not me?

How about, shut the fuck up?


Just sayin'

[leucetios]

asshate <-- preacher
leucetios <-- choir


EDIT:

beau <--- alter boy


EDIT EDIT: don't call me on the speeling, its a double entendre

[snarg]

:bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill: :bill:

bdic has won

:praise: