« previous   misc   next »

Insulting Users


By Patrick   Follow   Mon, 29 Oct 2012, 4:12am PDT   5,288 views   65 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

I have now banned "Darrell In Phoenix" who just can't seem to stop insulting other users. His latest comment was "Are you a realturd?"

I'm not a fan of realtors, but no sincere or useful discussion is possible with comments like that.

In real life, people don't act like that because of social inhibitions. No one will stick around to talk to you.

But on an anonymous forum, there is little penalty I guess, and so people are much ruder than they would be in real life.

Maybe the "Ignore" link should not be a Premium feature?

« First     « Previous     Comments 26-65 of 65     Last »

errc   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 6:18am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 26

Patrick says

errc says

Its akin to blogging about the weather from anywherville planet earth and not specifying your location

People from different hemisphere making observations out their own window, arguing with one another and calling eachother liars,,,,its fucking juvenille and there's no code patrick can write that would force people to act like sensible adults

True! I can't find any technical solution that selects only for polite or at least well-reasoned comments, so I'm limited to just banning the worst offenders now and then.

It's a hard problem. Suggestions appreciated.

The community can only be as good as its participants make it. I don't need the ignore feature, if I'm so bothered by someone elses postings, I can pretend to be grown enough to simply ignore them on my own,,,,but for the most part, I find the niggling to be entertaining

Patrick   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 6:30am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 27

iwog says

I think the aliases button is great. Is it working yet?

You should make sure it identifies past alias as well as current ones so people can see the track record.

Yes, it works, but it just uses the most recent IP address, which I store with the other info about the user.

To make it use all past IP addresses would be harder. I'd have to create a new table just to track them IP addresses, and it hardly seems worthwhile since anyone who is determined could still evade detection of aliases by strictly using one address (say phone) for one identity, and another (say DSL) for the other identity.

So far it's not that exciting since most people don't have any aliases.

dodgerfanjohn   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 6:35am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 28

iwog says

I think the aliases button is great. Is it working yet?

You should make sure it identifies past alias as well as current ones so people can see the track record.

You do realize that one of the other things that might help is for you do stop posting disingenuous charts that constantly have to be disproved before even getting into the meat of an argument.

It's your fault, and almost yours alone, that a character like Darrel inPhoenix is even spawned in the first place.

I know you're going to quibble about this because...well, that's what you do.

But really I just wanted to point out how much of an issue your postings are.

Goran_K   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 6:40am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 29

Yeah, I agree with dodgerfanjohn.

Trolls wouldn't exist if they didn't have anyone to engage with, it takes two to tango.

Patrick   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 7:00am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 30

iwog says

I think the aliases button is great. Is it working yet?

Oops, it was not working for people who started new threads. It was giving them the IP address of the Patrick.net server instead of their own address.

For those who care, the reason is that I was recording $_SERVER['SERVER_ADDR'] when I should have been recording $_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR'].

So there is a clump of people who all show up on the same alias page but actually have nothing to do with each other. Anyway, that will clear itself up as people post new threads and the right IP gets recorded.

Patrick   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 7:03am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 31

BTW, I don't see any "disingenous" charts from iwog.

Maybe some can be disproved, but I don't think he's deliberately pretending that known false charts are true. That would be the definition of disingenuous.

Bap33   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 7:12am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 32

my only other aliases are iwog, robertoaribas, and Dan8267. I thought it would be best for me to come clean now that everything will soon be public.

of course I am kidding ... or am I???

Patrick   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 7:16am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 33

Maybe we are all just ONE user talking to ourselves, but unaware of it.

Or maybe I'm starting to lose it.

curious2   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 7:28am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 34

Patrick says

Maybe we are all just ONE user talking to ourselves, but unaware of it.

"just a dream in somebody's head...."

dodgerfanjohn   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 7:28am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 35

Patrick says

BTW, I don't see any "disingenous" charts from iwog.

Maybe some can be disproved, but I don't think he's deliberately pretending that known false charts are true. That would be the definition of disingenuous.

Cutting out specific portions of charts and citing them as long term trends is absolutely within the definition of disingenuous.

So is posting charts from known biased sources, especially when there is data available that is known to conflict with the biased site.

Finally, it's also disingenuous to post charts of micro markets and pass them off as representative of a state or nationwide trend.

Duck is guilty of all of the above.

rooemoore   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 8:29am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 36

LiarWatch says

When someone has a clear stake in the direction of prices

We all have a clear stake in housing prices. Holy fuck, what do you want? If they fell the way you would like them too, EVERYONE would be screwed.

pazuzu   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 8:31am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 37

"...If they fell the way you would like them too, EVERYONE would be screwed."

Totally ass backward.

rooemoore   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 8:34am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 38

pazuzu says

"...If they fell the way you would like them too, EVERYONE would be screwed."

Totally ass backward.

Really, you don't think if prices fell another 60% we wouldn't all be screwed?

I am not hoping for another bubble and I doubt prices will rise much if at all over the next 10 years, but this moronic wish that peoples lives will be upended - there homes value to plummet - is fucking nuts.

rooemoore   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 8:37am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 39

LiarWatch says

stop your silliness.

Prices have already fallen back 10 years in most places. What the fuck do you want? Is is just about you not be able to afford a house or do you just like to see families suffer?

It is one thing to predict prices will go lower. In some markets they may, a little. It is quite another to wish for it in the extreme (60% is a common number here) so that it royally fucks the economy.

zesta   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 8:44am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 40

dodgerfanjohn says

Cutting out specific portions of charts and citing them as long term trends is absolutely within the definition of disingenuous.

So is posting charts from known biased sources, especially when there is data available that is known to conflict with the biased site.

Finally, it's also disingenuous to post charts of micro markets and pass them off as representative of a state or nationwide trend.

Honesty, you described "Darrel in Phoenix/LiarWatch" perfectly in his post above.

One thing I'd have to give IWOG and Roberto credit for is not hiding behind anonymity. On an internet message board, that goes a long way and takes some balls, especially given the obsessive symptoms exhibited by some posters.

rooemoore   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 8:47am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 41

LiarWatch says

rooemoore says

rices have already fallen back 10 years in most places.

2004 prices are NOT realistic.

And again, if you don't think prices are going much lower, you're in for the ride of your life. And no..... a 50% price cut will accelerate the economy like nothing else. No different than a 50% reduction in fuel prices.

You need to think before you post.

Oh I see how it works now. So if businesses pay employees 50% less, that is good too. Or if people work 50% less that is great for the economy.

If housing fell 50% many, many families would go bankrupt. They would spend less, buying only the very basic things they need. This would crash the economy and unemployment would rise.

And guess what? Fuel prices would go down.

Buddy, I am not going to engage you anymore. I don't know what your game is, but I know you don't understand simple economics so arguing with you is pointless.

Patrick   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 8:51am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 42

LiarWatch says

zesta says

IWOG and Roberto credit for is not hiding behind anonymity.

These two have multiple usernames.

No, they don't have multiple usernames.

Patrick   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 8:58am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike     Comment 43

pazuzu says

"...If they fell the way you would like them too, EVERYONE would be screwed."

Totally ass backward.

I agree, it's very wrong.

I think everyone would be far better off if prices plummeted. Only the banks would be screwed.

Just think about it: you could afford a much better house with much less work if prices were far lower. The loss on any current house you own would be more than made up for in the price reduction on your new place.

pazuzu   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 9:13am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 44

"I think everyone would be far better off if prices plummeted. Only the banks would be screwed."

+ people in the future are going to need lower house prices even more as their incomes will be drastically diminished.

We have to stop, our bank toady government "officials" from bailing the banksters out next time. Put them out in the street, in prison, etc...

rooemoore   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 9:23am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 45

Patrick says

pazuzu says

"...If they fell the way you would like them too, EVERYONE would be screwed."

Totally ass backward.

I agree, it's very wrong.

I think everyone would be far better off if prices plummeted. Only the banks would be screwed.

Just think about it: you could afford a much better house with much less work if prices were far lower. The loss on any current house you own would be more than made up for in the price reduction on your new place.

The economic naivete on this site is something to behold.

If prices "plummeted" unemployment would rise dramatically. Explain how that is a good thing.

How about prices remain stable, the economy slowly grows and wages go up?

Patrick   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 9:32am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 46

rooemoore says

If prices "plummeted" unemployment would rise dramatically.

I don't see how that follows.

Unemployment should be relatively independent of house prices.

pazuzu   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 9:38am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 47

Normally unemployment is not tied to house prices, but during the obscene housing bubble the sector grew out of all proportion to its value to society.

During this period an excessive amount of people swelled the ranks of the REIC. Now many of them are out of work, but that's just the aftermath of the malinvestment.

Too bad they chose the way of greed and spent so much time doing unproductive things, hopefully many of them have other skills.

rooemoore   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 9:41am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 48

Patrick says

rooemoore says

If prices "plummeted" unemployment would rise dramatically.

I don't see how that follows.

Unemployment should be relatively independent of house prices.

Not when they "plummet".

When housing prices "plummet" people spend less money. LOTS less money. What do you think happens to businesses when people spend lots less money?

Then there is the nasty little fact that many families - you know, moms and dads and kids - will lose there homes. I know many here would say "fools - they shouldn't have bought a house in 2004!" Heartless bastards.

We need stability with steady economic growth.

rooemoore   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 9:43am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 49

Yup says

rooemoore says

Prices have already fallen back 10 years in most places. What the fuck do you want? Is is just about you not be able to afford a house or do you just like to see families suffer?

Do you have any idea what the median wage is in this country? A little more than $26,000. It is suffering buying an inflated home and going into debt slavery. With wages at that level home prices have a long way to go.

Yes, and if prices plummet the wage plummet with them.

dodgerfanjohn   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 10:24am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 50

rooemoore says

Patrick says

rooemoore says

If prices "plummeted" unemployment would rise dramatically.

I don't see how that follows.

Unemployment should be relatively independent of house prices.

Not when they "plummet".

When housing prices "plummet" people spend less money. LOTS less money. What do you think happens to businesses when people spend lots less money?

Then there is the nasty little fact that many families - you know, moms and dads and kids - will lose there homes. I know many here would say "fools - they shouldn't have bought a house in 2004!" Heartless bastards.

We need stability with steady economic growth.

This doesn't make any sense at all. If my housing costs decreased, I'd spend more AND save more. Does my income magically evaporate if my housing costs decrease?

iwog   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 11:10am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 51

dodgerfanjohn says

Cutting out specific portions of charts and citing them as long term trends is absolutely within the definition of disingenuous.

So is posting charts from known biased sources, especially when there is data available that is known to conflict with the biased site.

Finally, it's also disingenuous to post charts of micro markets and pass them off as representative of a state or nationwide trend.

Duck is guilty of all of the above.

Your lack of examples totally destroy any point you are trying to make.

My suggestion would be you use specific instances with links combined with data you consider credible. Otherwise you're just trolling.

BTW the only way I could be posting charts of micro markets trying to pass them off as a nationwide trend would be if I failed to label the location the data was intended to cover. Have I ever done that?

No I don't think so.

iwog   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 11:11am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 52

LiarWatch says

Patrick says

No, they don't have multiple usernames.

Yes they do.

LOL

rooemoore   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 11:21am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 53

dodgerfanjohn says

This doesn't make any sense at all. If my housing costs decreased, I'd spend more AND save more. Does my income magically evaporate if my housing costs decrease?

If housing prices "plummet" in the order of 60% which is what I was referencing, then yes, your income would most likely decrease. All those owners who either bought in the last 10 years or refinanced to put their kids through college would be even more screwed than they already are. They would spend a lot less or perhaps go bankrupt. That would fuck the economy and any hope of reducing the deficit.

I can't believe I have to explain this when it just happened to our economy.

To recap. Bubbles bad, crashes bad. Stability good.

See fucking Spot run!

mell   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 11:26am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 54

rooemoore says

dodgerfanjohn says

This doesn't make any sense at all. If my housing costs decreased, I'd spend more AND save more. Does my income magically evaporate if my housing costs decrease?

If housing prices "plummet" in the order of 60% which is what I was referencing, then yes, your income would most likely decrease. All those owners who either bought in the last 10 years or refinanced to put their kids through college would be even more screwed than they already are. They would spend a lot less or perhaps go bankrupt. That would fuck the economy and any hope of reducing the deficit.

I can't believe I have to explain this when it just happened to our economy.

To recap. Bubbles bad, crashes bad. Stability good.

See fucking Spot run!

If house prices fall to a level where people can buy either cash or be mortgage-free in a very short time then they actually own a dependable asset they can use safely as live and workspace, plus they can use leftover money that doesn't go into an inflated mortgage for other investments/ventures - I almost only see benefits. It is not about the actual sum of the purchase price but about how affordable that sum is. If current homeowners are "screwed" by such action it means they shouldn't have bought in the first place. Never invest money you cannot afford to lose, entirely.

dodgerfanjohn   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 11:42am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 55

Iwog,it must totally lie beyond your grasp that postings have been dredged up this week displaying you doing exactly what I stated, from over two years ago.

Anyway, I'm not going to spend hours scouring and linking posts just to prove a point to random people on the Internet.

Don't troll a troll, son.

As to the housing prices dropping = my income drops...you're gonna have to do a better job explaining that one.

iwog   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 11:44am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 56

dodgerfanjohn says

Iwog,it must totally lie beyond your grasp that postings have been dredged up this week displaying you doing exactly what I stated, from over two years ago.

Yup except you're wrong and making shit up. When someone disagrees with you on something that was posted, it is customary to provide a link so people can see if you are lying or not.

dodgerfanjohn says

Anyway, I'm not going to spend hours scouring and linking posts just to prove a point to random people on the Internet.

Which proves just how credible you are. You'll make accusations and then run when asked to prove them.

curious2   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 12:29pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 57

I have a question about Aliases. Melmakian started five threads, all today, all about politics with weird non-logic apparently designed to fight for attention. Others are calling him/her Shrek. I clicked Aliases, and found none. Is Melmakian Shrek, and if so is there a way for Aliases to include name changes? I suspect name changes may in some instances be motivated to bypass the human 'ignore' feature. (I understand the official Ignore feature would follow the account regardless of name, but the human version can be fooled by a new name.)

Patrick   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 2:18pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 58

curious2 says

Is Melmakian Shrek

Yes.

curious2 says

is there a way for Aliases to include name changes?

Yes, aliases should show up even if the name is changed, because it's just a list of users with the same IP address.

But in the case of Shrek, I actually removed his previous account, so there is no alias to find. I probably should not have done that.

elliemae   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 2:30pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (4)   Dislike     Comment 59

A friend of mine was a participant on a military-type board - he was condescending and rude toward another user and received two warnings.

Couldn't keep his mouth (fingers) shut; he's banned for a year.

Patrick   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 3:12pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 60

I like it.

iwog   Fri, 2 Nov 2012, 11:11am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 61

Melmakian says

Patrick says

I probably should not have done that.

Yeah, it makes it way more difficult for Iwog to libel me w/o having any previous entries to mischaracterize.

Please link the last time I mischaracterized or even paraphrased something you said and has since been deleted.

My belief is that this particular complaint is entirely fictional. Prove me wrong.

elliemae   Sun, 4 Nov 2012, 1:54am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 62

iwog says

My belief is that this particular complaint is entirely fictional. Prove me wrong.

Iwog, you may be misunderestimating him...

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   Sun, 4 Nov 2012, 9:45pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 63

Can't we all be snuggy and agree that CANNIBAL ANARCHY is inevitable?

elliemae   Mon, 5 Nov 2012, 10:02pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 64

LiarWatch says

In fact Iwog seems to miss alot.

It was a George Bushism. It ain't a word.

elliemae   Mon, 5 Nov 2012, 10:02pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 65

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Can't we all be snuggy and agree that CANNIBAL ANARCHY is inevitable?

Snuggy? hmmm, is that a sword, or are you happy to see me?

« First     « Previous comments    

Patrick is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net