Ooooookay.
Your money does not dictate the rules or how they are enforced, so I've no idea why you mentioned this.
Your hyperbole does you no credit when all it signifies is that you didn't take the time to actually read and comprehend the content of the discussions. You accuse all of the participants of this thread of blowing something out of proportion, only to be the sole person who is melting down due to a combination of misconceptions, generalizations, and outright falsehood.
If said signature involved blatant commercialization and/or some form of the incentive of payment to encourage clicking, as highlighted in the rules, since you asked.
While I agree that people who go on the Internet have a responsibility to be their own content filter, what you're arguing is like me saying that governments only exist for corruption and thus should never be respected or acknowledged.Â
What you personally believe about 'triggers' does absolutely nothing to discount the fact that they exist and are capable of affecting people, despite the Internet being responsible for discrediting the term. Ironically enough, your blatant disparagement of the term marks you as someone who would like to be penned and sheltered away from acknowledging the fact that triggers are capable of being real and negatively affecting the people who suffer them.
No. Which, if you comprehended the rules as they are posted, you would know.
Disregarding it would be a favour, since by even taking the time to respond to your absurdities I'm only escalating the situation.
The only rustled tailfeathers anyone can see is yours. Most of the responses, while occasionally being openly or passively aggressive in some manner, were more or less measured and restrained to the idea of civilized discourse. And then you entered full of ad hominem and a lack of perspective or comprehension and proceeded to flip the table and then have the gall to blame those participating in the discussion.
Hey, remember when you wrote this?
Yeah. That's what I'm talking about.
I imagine they would start by giving you a warning, if you were paying attention.
For future reference, your condescending self-deprecation only harms whatever argument you were trying to make if you do nothing but give your opponent the grounds to agree with it.
(04-30-2015, 10:58 PM)☆Flynt Reddard☆ Wrote: I threw money at a forum hoping to be able to discuss anything freely
Your money does not dictate the rules or how they are enforced, so I've no idea why you mentioned this.
(04-30-2015, 10:58 PM)☆Flynt Reddard☆ Wrote: ...from what I read this is turning into the next Gamergate.
Your hyperbole does you no credit when all it signifies is that you didn't take the time to actually read and comprehend the content of the discussions. You accuse all of the participants of this thread of blowing something out of proportion, only to be the sole person who is melting down due to a combination of misconceptions, generalizations, and outright falsehood.
(04-30-2015, 10:58 PM)☆Flynt Reddard☆ Wrote: Under what circumstances would posting in your signature another means to contact the user be wrong or even questionable
If said signature involved blatant commercialization and/or some form of the incentive of payment to encourage clicking, as highlighted in the rules, since you asked.
(04-30-2015, 10:58 PM)☆Flynt Reddard☆ Wrote: Triggers are just a means for sheltered folks to stay more sheltered and penned in their little safety box instead of accepting that there are things on the internet that they don't like. It's depressing and an unhealthy way with coping with what makes you uncomfortable.
While I agree that people who go on the Internet have a responsibility to be their own content filter, what you're arguing is like me saying that governments only exist for corruption and thus should never be respected or acknowledged.Â
What you personally believe about 'triggers' does absolutely nothing to discount the fact that they exist and are capable of affecting people, despite the Internet being responsible for discrediting the term. Ironically enough, your blatant disparagement of the term marks you as someone who would like to be penned and sheltered away from acknowledging the fact that triggers are capable of being real and negatively affecting the people who suffer them.
(04-30-2015, 10:58 PM)☆Flynt Reddard☆ Wrote:  In addition, if there is a link to something like say, a five second audio clip related to the user's character (I'm obviously talking about my sig link), is that illegal? Do I need to tag it?Â
No. Which, if you comprehended the rules as they are posted, you would know.
(04-30-2015, 10:58 PM)☆Flynt Reddard☆ Wrote: Don't even try to disregard anything I say as argument bait either
Disregarding it would be a favour, since by even taking the time to respond to your absurdities I'm only escalating the situation.
(04-30-2015, 10:58 PM)☆Flynt Reddard☆ Wrote: Serious shame for not going a week without some thread that will rustle some chump's tailfeathers.
The only rustled tailfeathers anyone can see is yours. Most of the responses, while occasionally being openly or passively aggressive in some manner, were more or less measured and restrained to the idea of civilized discourse. And then you entered full of ad hominem and a lack of perspective or comprehension and proceeded to flip the table and then have the gall to blame those participating in the discussion.
Hey, remember when you wrote this?
(04-30-2015, 10:58 PM)☆Flynt Reddard☆ Wrote: I'm actually pretty rustled by this
Yeah. That's what I'm talking about.
(04-30-2015, 10:58 PM)☆Flynt Reddard☆ Wrote: Get tighter on threads that erupt into things like this, because it just turns into a big shitstorm that causes users to quarrel among one another.Â
I imagine they would start by giving you a warning, if you were paying attention.
(04-30-2015, 10:58 PM)☆Flynt Reddard☆ Wrote: But what do I know? I'm just a stupid teenager, right guys?Â
For future reference, your condescending self-deprecation only harms whatever argument you were trying to make if you do nothing but give your opponent the grounds to agree with it.
