patrick.net

Lol@ someone disliking this. Facts are something to dislike? Funny, according to the leftists here it's only the trump supporters that don't like facts.

Fucking White Male says

Lol@ citing Dan:

Dan8267 is banning: Bellingham Bill BlueSardine Blurtman bob2356 CBOEtrader errc FortWayne GONE Goran_K Heraclitusstudent indigenous komputodo lostand confused No news is good news NuttBoxer P N Dr Lo R Paralithodes PeopleUnited Quigley Rashomon rpanic01 socal2 Strategist Straw Man Tenpoundbass The Original Bankster

Dan8267 is banned by: BlueSardine errc Heraclitusstudent P N Dr Lo R PeopleUnited Straw Man

The fucking balls on people.
Entitles to ban people from posting in their Political rants directed at those they know can read it, but can't post.
But then bitch because you can still see their posts?

It's a terrible thing when somebody can pile on the ad hominems without offering ad hominem retaliation and recourse. All that pent up ad hominem energy has nowhere to go, don't want another Patnetter going postal.

Dan8267 says

Straw Man, less lying.

Where the fuck did I lie?

Ceffer says

don't want another Patnetter going postal.

Republican & Democrat voters/supporters on patnet will drive the sane..nuts.
The stupidity burns.

I don't feel that the blocking system is failing; I feel it is useful, but must be used selectively and with a certain amount of critical introspection concerning one's own failings or faults (in posting). I have a very active blocking policy, and it's kinda like how I would maintain classroom discipline if I were teaching. Psychotic, or obcessive-compulsive, or ideologue, or profane or vicious, or uncivil persons will be blocked. So will persons who routinely engage in non-sequiturs or chaotic disturbed ramblings or angry rants. The reason I block these is not because they disagree with me or distress me; it's because those who may wish to discuss along the original topic of the thread are deflected from doing so by these peoples' eruptive outbursts. If any of these persons wanted to put up a post saying they agreed not to do these things again on my threads, I would unblock them.

Secondly, if I do comment on others' threads, I feel I must be civil, pretty much limit my comments to the actual topic they started it with, be relevant, be factual, and be coherent. Above all, one should never go on other threads and be disruptive; it's just disrespectful.

There are those on this site who I disagree with about the scope of science, rationality, and the scientific method. Or those as against whom I hold different economic theories. Or some I feel get too much into Islamophobic diatribes. Or those who "can never be wrong". Or some who try to constantly misdirect my threads into topics I really prefer be on their own threads, as I see them as irrelevant to the point I originally posted. But these people are never going to be blocked on my threads, though they really make me mad at times, because they are essentially civil and their expressions are grounded in some variant of evidence or rationality, although they may come to conclusions I eschew.

I don't see why this is such a big problem unless people want to fight instead of discuss things amicably and intelligently (which is kinda why I made my [semi]joke posting several weeks back suggesting Patrick introduce a "Bedevil" feature, the opposite of the "Befriend" feature, so that those who want to abuse and belittle each other could exchange personal emails and get into it off-site)

Can't we all just get along?

This is a hell of a rise on some seriously mild volume.

Yes, up 5% today.

Straw Man says

Where the fuck did I lie?

The world is heating up due to man-made pollution. We are changing the climate, melting the polar ice, raising sea levels, raising the mosquito line, and altering rainfall patterns. These are cold, hard, indisputable facts proven by tens of thousands of lines of independent evidence.

These facts are not political opinions. If you say these facts are wrong, then you are lying. It is a lie to say that the warming of the planet is due to natural or cyclic causes. It is a lie to say that the science is inconclusive or undecided. It is a lie to say that the effects are not happening right now. It is a lie to say that the effects are not increasing exponentially. It is a lie to say that people will not be harmed by these effects.

Finally, it is a lie to say that the economy is better off allowing massive pollution to make one arbitrary set of goods cheaper. Making goods like coal and oil cheaper makes clean, independent energy more expensive by hindering investment into the development of those technologies. And since oil also makes us dependent on hostile states that sponsor terrorism, massive economic resources are wasted on needless war.

Even ignoring the destruction of environmental wealth, which is clearly worth at least quadrillions of dollars and is the vast majority of the world's wealth store, allowing pollution still is an economic drag. Pollution makes the Earth less productive. It poisons seafood. It increases health care costs. It reduces able-bodied workers.

To oppose pollution control requires greed, ignorance, and stupidity. Anyone lacking even one of these attributes would oppose pollution. For example, a person who is greedy and ignorant, but not stupid, would learn and realize that, unless he's an oil or coal tycoon, his own wealth and future wealth is being diminished by pollution.

There is no up side to pollution. It does not make goods or services cheaper. It shifts the costs of those goods and services to everyone else. That's socialism, and the one truly bad use case of socialism. It sure as hell ain't free markets to allow some products to shift their costs to non-consumers, but not others. Doing so distorts markets and causes misallocation of resources. This is economics 101. Even if you don't give a shit about the environment or other people and only care about money, you should at least have the intelligence to realize this.

#pollutionIsAnEconomicCost

Fucking White Male says

Lol@ citing Dan:

Dan8267 is banning: Bellingham Bill BlueSardine Blurtman bob2356 CBOEtrader errc FortWayne GONE Goran_K Heraclitusstudent indigenous komputodo lostand confused No news is good news NuttBoxer P N Dr Lo R Paralithodes PeopleUnited Quigley Rashomon rpanic01 socal2 Strategist Straw Man Tenpoundbass The Original Bankster

All those people are trolls and losers. I stand by that ban list. However, it is too short. I'll fix that.

It's no coincidence that the same losers show up in so many ban lists. Basically PatNet is divided into users who want sincere conversations and debates about social and political issues and users who are immature asswipes who can't get along with anyone outside of their tribe. You are among the latter, FWM.

Quite frankly, I suspect PatNet would flourish if those on my ban list simply stopped using the Internet or at least PatNet.

Tenpoundbass says

The fucking balls on people.

Entitles to ban people from posting in their Political rants directed at those they know can read it, but can't post.

But then bitch because you can still see their posts?

The only thing worse than TPB's political views is his grasp of English. I imagine him as a lunatic frothing at the mouth while repeating every conspiracy theory he finds on conservative propaganda sites. He probably has a bunker full of guns and yams.

TPB is a deranged, real-life version of the character of Apocalypsefuck.

zzyzzx says

Wouldn't that me more if an ignore user feature?

Ban and ignore can both be features. They should be independent of each other though.

Herb says

if I do comment on others' threads, I feel I must be civil, pretty much limit my comments to the actual topic they started it with, be relevant, be factual, and be coherent.

You clearly don't belong on PatNet. This site is all about verbal hate sex.

Dan8267 says

Herb says

if I do comment on others' threads, I feel I must be civil, pretty much limit my comments to the actual topic they started it with, be relevant, be factual, and be coherent.

You clearly don't belong on PatNet. This site is all about verbal hate sex.

It is what you make it

Herb says

I made my [semi]joke posting several weeks back suggesting Patrick introduce a "Bedevil" feature, the opposite of the "Befriend" feature, so that those who want to abuse and belittle each other could exchange personal emails and get into it off-site)

I fear that would result in patrick.net being mentioned in a police report about assault or murder. "Victim became acquainted with perpetrator via online forum patrick.net..."

Interesting. Never considered this as for the most part I ignore banning.
I like the idea that if you ban someone, you also ban yourself from posting in their threads.
If someone goes to the extreme of banning, then it should automatically work both ways...

zzyzzx says

First off, you have to understand that when someone bans you, it's really only a one way thing. They can still post in your threads, etc. You really have to ban them back. I don't understand why everyone doesn't do this.

I just don't know how people don't dive in with a 9% yield that is poised to increase.

It's too generous. Probably freaks them out.

"Why you want to give me so much money?!"

This is absolutely boring.
How about no bans altogether. Instead:

Have two modes for a thread:
1- safe mode. thread owner can mark posts as unsafe as needed with a simple click
2- thread can be viewed with all posts, or just safe posts by all users. simple click to switch back and forth
3- insults and diversions can be kept in chronological order for maximum entertainment value
4- those with a bone for serious shit can have their cake, even if the baker won't bake...

Herb says

Secondly, if I do comment on others' threads, I feel I must be civil, pretty much limit my comments to the actual topic they started it with, be relevant, be factual, and be coherent. Above all, one should never go on other threads and be disruptive; it's just disrespectful.

5- A thread will always default to safe mode when first clicked...

BlueSardine says

This is absolutely boring.

How about no bans altogether. Instead:

Have two modes for a thread:

1- safe mode. thread owner can mark posts as unsafe as needed with a simple click

2- thread can be viewed with all posts, or just safe posts by all users. simple click to switch back and forth

3- insults and diversions can be kept in chronological order for maximum entertainment value

4- those with a bone for serious shit can have their cake, even if the baker won't bake...

Corrected.
Goran_K says

Unless you're afflicted with an extreme case of OCD

What would Reddit do?

As I understand it, each sub-Reddit has one or more moderators who can ban users or even delete comments, but everyone can still see everything. That seems similar to what we have here now. Everyone is a moderator for their own threads in terms of banning.

Does Reddit have a better system somehow?

rando says

What would Reddit do?

As I understand it, each sub-Reddit has one or more moderators who can ban users or even delete comments, but everyone can still see everything. That seems similar to what we have here now. Everyone is a moderator for their own threads in terms of banning.

Does Reddit have a better system somehow?

I think the current system is fine. If you don't want to engage with someone, it's easy to ignore them or ban them from your threads. Literally there is no way for someone here to harass or bully you.

It seems to work fine for me.

I guess the concept of getting money from a business is foreign to too many people these days.

rando says

Does Reddit have a better system somehow?

No, but it does have more porn. So it's better.

Goran_K says

Literally there is no way for someone here to harass or bully you.

This basically applies to Internet as a whole.

Can it be made so that if a person bans somebody then they also cant post in the threads of the banned?

I think its childish to ban people for simply not agreeing or having a different view.

Danny adhominemed me on a thunderdome thread! WTF??
@Patrick

BlueSardine says

Danny adhominemed me on a thunderdome thread! WTF??

And triggered you! Fair? No. An abuse of power? Yes. Would I do it again? Yes, because you deserve it!

www.youtube.com/embed/SAMes-H21pc

rpanic01 says

I think its childish to ban people for simply not agreeing or having a different view.

I agree. The idea is to make it more of a marketplace where people will start to know which threads they want to comment in by who authored it.

If someone is being childish, then just leave them alone and write up your point in your own thread. If you are mature about things, people will comment in your thread and you'll have the bigger audience eventually.

At least that's the theory. Not sure it will work. So many unexpected twists when dealing with humans. Makes me fond of computers.

BlueSardine says

Danny adhominemed me on a thunderdome thread! WTF??

OK fixed. adhom link is gone again from thunderdome threads.

Sorry, distracted with work on the new version of the site.

I agree. The idea is to make it more of a marketplace where people will start to know which threads they want to comment in by who authored it.

---------------

Your only possible outcome is failure. You're attempting to control that which cannot be controlled, in lieu of simply dealing with reality.

User Names and picture icons are childish, and they have no value. Possibly even a negative value.

Do away with user names, and the problem solves itself. All you're left with is ideas.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/valuetrap.asp

Not that I think this is what's going on, I didn't sell my 200 shares last month when it was going down.

When big fish were getting out either they had inside information on upcoming not-good news, or they just wanted out of a stock that wasn't going to pop any more, and/or wanted out of the carbon-heavy sector altogether.

Yahoo Finance board on ARLP said Trump's appointed ambassador to Canada is the CEO's wife, so there's that . . .

Yes, seems to be true:

http://www.dailyindependent.com/news/kelly-craft-named-ambassador-to-canada/article_e35ff690-5150-11e7-b297-dfe10fde83cc.html

pulling out never even occurred to me with this dividend. I'm up 50% on my initial purchase and up 7% on what I bought on Friday. I'm content to collect that dividend for the next two years.

Triggered? No.
Just pointing out a software bug to Patrick.

An abuse of power? No.
You have none.

Would you do it again? Who cares?

Dan8267 says

BlueSardine says

Danny adhominemed me on a thunderdome thread! WTF??

And triggered you! Fair? No. An abuse of power? Yes. Would I do it again? Yes, because you deserve it!

rando says

OK fixed. adhom link is gone again from thunderdome threads.

I've never banned anyone for any reason other than trolling or repeatedly publishing debunk lies and propaganda.

--------------

That's dishonest as hell.

You put me on ignore for taking you to school on how lame your attempt at humor is. And stating too many facts that you cannot refute, and you don't like how said truths make you look.

Bellingham Bill is a troll? Bob numbers? You're delusional.

Actually I looked over your list, and there's not really many trolls, rather people you don't like or disagree with.

Odd, I recall telling you to put Ironman on ignore, and you refused. Likely because you're lonely as hell, and enjoyed the attention he trolled your way, even though everyone else loathed the stupid goat crap and gay porn you shared with him.

Get a life

errc says

That's dishonest as hell.

Just because you trolls don't recognize yourself as trolls doesn't make you any less of a troll.

errc says

Actually I looked over your list, and there's not really many trolls, rather people you don't like or disagree with.

Yet there are more people that disagree with me on many issues that aren't on that list. Hence, you conjecture is wrong.

errc says

even though everyone else loathed the stupid goat crap and gay porn you shared with him.

Actually plenty of people got the humor and clicked liked and even participated in the roasting of CIC. Just because you are a humorless little shit that can't get a joke doesn't mean the joke has no value to other people. Why didn't you just place me on ignore if you despise my sense of humor so much? Then you wouldn't have seen any of it. Hypocrisy much?

errc says

Get a life

I'm sorry. Did I trigger you? Tough shit.

You have just demonstrated exactly why you are a troll and why I have banned you. I don't even know if you and I ever disagreed on something, but you are a shitty person who I would not give the time of day to in real life, so why should I let you troll in my threads? You can't even resist trolling in this thread. You can't even muster up enough maturity to discuss the topic without attacking others. That's the definition of troll.

Once more, stupid trolls demonstrate why they are stupid trolls while trying to claim that they aren't stupid trolls.

Dan8267 says

troll

I don't like the word "troll"--I first heard it in kindergarten in reference to the troll under the bridge in some fairy tale and forever associated it with the word "Victrola", which I think is an insult to the machine and name.

Actually, Dan is in his element here with line after line of fake outrage in reference to the lesser mortals on this forum. He must have had a memory lapse when he left me off the list, but I'm sure I'll receive and honorable mention now.