"Why won't any one play with me?" A discussion about self indulgence and Masturbatory RBR's
Today is going to be different, everyone is going to applaud your communication skills and adopt your point of view. You log on and check the front page. A few discussions are bouncing around and you finally find the one that interests you. After googling a few related Items you hit the submit button with your well thought out response and then the disappointment begins. Damn them! The animals on the forum aren't behaving the way you want them too!
You're not a quitter! There is only one way to get what you want! An article of your own! This time it's going to be different because in the first comment you will set them straight. Red Box Rules? That's right, Red Box Rules tailored to support your point of view. Those unruly free thinkers can't beat you now!
RED RULES apply:
- Be polite . No insults whatsoever. No insults to particular people, to groups of people, to ideas, ... None!
- Be smart . Contribute substantive thought. Facts and/or reasoning. One-line zingers and bumper-sticker mantras are by definition off-topic.
The topic here is the need for government transparency on the presumption that the moon landing was a hoax. The reality of hoax is a given, for this conversation. The reality of the moon landing hoax is not the topic; any posts on that subject will be deleted. If you don't want to accept the premise, at least for the duration of the conversation... then go away!
Now watch me masturbate publicly and waste the moderators time as i demand off topic comments be removed from my article. I win! I cannot be defeated! Victory is mine!
Comment removed by Author to provide safe space.....It did say " ______ I tell you! ______I tell you are ruining this site!
Hey? where did everyone go? Why won't anyone play with me?
Tags
Who is online
51 visitors
This is an obvious hit piece that should either be moved to Heated Discussion or deleted altogether.
So, here we have an article that crosses into not one, but two topics:
1)The QUALITY of an article and,
2)The KNOWLEDGE of the participants in the thread(s).
On point #1:
By virtue of the quality of journalism today, most articles are editorial pieces disguised as news. This exposes the seeder to the biases of the author. This places additional responsibility on the seeder, if they wish to have the discussion that they so desire. The seeder has an axe to grind, and uses a "news" piece to further their opinion, and would like to have you agree with them. Safe to say, there is great peril in selecting an article to seed, UNLESS you are versed in the debating points, and are ready to flow against objection. Most of us are capable of doing this, but are often hamstrung because we select shitty articles to seed. So shame on you if you don't know how to pick an article.
On point #2:
Nothing will cause you greater pain than seeding an article that comports to your opinion, when there is another on the site that is more familiar with the subject, and tears your soft, smooth asshole into little raw pieces. If you are not ready to learn something from someone that knows more than you, and continue to thrash about, you risk having the rest of you digestive tract being torn apart. Advice? Don't continue to fuck with someone that knows more than you, and is able to prove that you're wrong. You can believe all you want that there are others on the site that will agree with you. You can even consider the possibility that because you are not in the majority that you are being treated unfairly. If you think you're proving something by continuing to do this, all you are proving is that you enjoy the abuse. And all we really want to do is help you to enjoy yourself.
Hey everyone. Let's all have great Labor Day weekend.
G-d bless NewsTalkers.
G-d bless the United States of America.
Stand for the anthem, asshole.
Well said!
Does NTers have a comment of the year award yet?
We are going to give "comment of the year" to something that was off topic?
See that, John?
My comment was 1)COMPLETELY on topic and 2)depersonalized it, so as not to make it seem that I was addressing you solely and directly.
"Insert CoC violation insult here".
ask me if i care
John,
Do you care
that you don't engage in as many meaningful threads and debates as you'd like to?
do i care about your opinion of it? uh, no.
John in light of whats recently been on the site , yeah I can see your point , but I can also see the bigger issue , that was covered in the meta on RBR when they were first brought up and all the issues they would bring about .
if someone is going to make up RBRs that are so tight and limit the scope of discussion then I feel it should not be surprising that article dies of loneliness due to lack of participation, and its not fault of others who might comment and discuss the issue if those restrictions were not as tight or didn't exist.
personally I don't like RBR , but can live with them dependant on what they are, but ultimately it is I who decides if I will comment or not , usually its because of the RBR limitations that turns it into an echo chamber.
I have told him that I will not participate in articles where the RBR is too restrictive, and I don't.
That is not a reason for an attack as a front page article.
John , I will not single any one person out ,because there are others that use RBR with varying measures of success or failure , my comment stands for anyone , who chooses to use RBR , so those that do , have to take those feelings or realities into account if they wish participation on their seeds and articles.
I like I stated can see your point , but I also see the article without naming names as addressing an issue that is larger than just recent events .
I can see RBR as both a help or a hinderance , its entirely up to the person who chooses to use them how they work as related to what rules they impose.
actually I think its define pornography , it cant be defined but you know it when you see it . why is that? because what is pornography to one person could be considered art to another .
Isn't the whole point of masturbation playing with oneself? So wouldn't it be silly to become upset if others didn't want to "play" with you?
(I've intentionally skirted the issue)......
BF, I think PJ wants to play with you.
Whoa there buckaroo. That's a game I prefer to play alone. BF's services are not needed. I've got this in hand.
I'm pretty sure the red in red box rules was derived from the red communists. Those that what to restrict the freedom of others and oppress those that disagree.