invite response« First « Previous Comments 53 - 92 of 602 Next » Last » Search these comments
53
justme
2017 Jan 16, 11:02am
justme
2017 Jan 16, 11:02am
Has there been any discussion recently of of username histories? I do find it laborious and confusing with all the people that change their names. Another problem with changing usernames is that old posts are harder to understand since the user is now known by a different name.
Hmm, I wonder if I edit and put @patrick in after the fact, will he still get an email?
54
Patrick
2017 Jan 16, 11:07am
Patrick
2017 Jan 16, 11:07am
Hi @justme yes, I got an email when you edited and put that in.
Should there be some limit on the ability to change usernames? It does get confusing when they get quoted under one name, but have since changed it so that the old quote and new comments appear under different names.
55
Dan8267
2017 Jan 16, 11:28am
Dan8267
2017 Jan 16, 11:28am
This site was a lot better when all of CIC's post were redirected to his goat porn collection.
56
justme
2017 Jan 16, 11:57am
justme
2017 Jan 16, 11:57am
Should there be some limit on the ability to change usernames?
I think one username ever per email address is a good idea. By the way, are you as admin able to retrace the changes of usernames? I history of usernames on the user "homepage" is work but would be very informative.
57
Patrick
2017 Jan 16, 12:07pm
Patrick
2017 Jan 16, 12:07pm
I cannot easily trace changes of username, because the previous name is overwritten in the database when a user changes it.
It would be possible to trace some name changes by looking at quotes of user comments, but it would be a lot of work, and still not reliable because the quotes could be edited at any time. I suppose I have backups and could look at the state of the database over time, but that would also be hard.
It would be easier to create a new table of names which shows changes over time from now on. Is it worth the work?
What does gmail do? Can you change your gmail address and retain the same account?
58
anonymous
2018 Feb 2, 9:15pm
How about just banning users who get paid to post here with manufactured talking points from organizations such as ShareBlue?
59
WookieMan
2018 Feb 2, 9:23pm
WookieMan
2018 Feb 2, 9:23pm
anon_d2f7c says
I just looked up ShareBlue. I don't really care about left or right. I don't believe that was your point, but who knows. I do actually agree with the sentiment though. I know it probably happens a ton, but straight up copy pasting from an article without sourcing it is not cool. I wouldn't ban these people, but if you cannot come up with original comments or commentary on an article, just stop. At some point you'll see the puppet strings attached to your fingers as you're typing.
How about just banning users who get paid to post here with manufactured talking points from organizations such as ShareBlue?
I just looked up ShareBlue. I don't really care about left or right. I don't believe that was your point, but who knows. I do actually agree with the sentiment though. I know it probably happens a ton, but straight up copy pasting from an article without sourcing it is not cool. I wouldn't ban these people, but if you cannot come up with original comments or commentary on an article, just stop. At some point you'll see the puppet strings attached to your fingers as you're typing.
61
WookieMan
2018 Feb 2, 9:46pm
WookieMan
2018 Feb 2, 9:46pm
anon_4460e says
This is annoying too, I'll agree with that. I can't lie, some of the non-political ones are rather funny from time to time. So if plagiarizing is a 10, then memes are like a 5/6 in my book of annoyance.
oh no just memes is all we need to "discuss" something
This is annoying too, I'll agree with that. I can't lie, some of the non-political ones are rather funny from time to time. So if plagiarizing is a 10, then memes are like a 5/6 in my book of annoyance.
62
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 13, 11:50am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 13, 11:50am
Hi Pat,
There's a comment that includes an attack on the site as a whole. I don't see an option to "Disapprove" a post.
There's a comment that includes an attack on the site as a whole. I don't see an option to "Disapprove" a post.
63
WookieMan
2018 Feb 13, 3:05pm
WookieMan
2018 Feb 13, 3:05pm
TwoScoopsPlissken says
What thread is it in? I'm check recent stuff now.
Hi Pat,
There's a comment that includes an attack on the site as a whole. I don't see an option to "Disapprove" a post.
What thread is it in? I'm check recent stuff now.
65
anonymous
2018 Feb 13, 4:31pm
TwoScoopsPlissken says
So it’s official! We have another new mod
Congrats on the gig
MAGA!!
It's gone now from my mod queue.
So it’s official! We have another new mod
Congrats on the gig
MAGA!!
66
anonymous
2018 Feb 13, 4:33pm
Praise kek!
Kek kek reeeeeeeee!
Pepe will bring Hilldog to justice
We just need a few million more man hours from the great MAGA folk to finally sleuth out the details
Kek kek reeeeeeeee!
Pepe will bring Hilldog to justice
We just need a few million more man hours from the great MAGA folk to finally sleuth out the details
67
justme
2018 Feb 13, 4:40pm
justme
2018 Feb 13, 4:40pm
The State Assembly of West Virginia is also against free speech. In fact, they are so much against free speech that they forbid "personal comments" about other members of the assembly. Case in point, assemblywoman Lissa Lucas is forcible ejected from the speaker stand for reading a list of politician names, donor names and amounts of campaign contributions.
www.youtube.com/embed/fHl1rYpXWis
It is amazing to see that even a state assembly can have rules that censor the speech of its lawfully and duly elected members. Absolutely frightening. Should this not be a case taken to the Supreme Court?
www.youtube.com/embed/fHl1rYpXWis
It is amazing to see that even a state assembly can have rules that censor the speech of its lawfully and duly elected members. Absolutely frightening. Should this not be a case taken to the Supreme Court?
68
anonymous
2018 Feb 13, 8:22pm
justme says
As someone who acted as parliamentarian at a contentious hearing I applaud the removal of these people.
In my case we had 125 WEEKS of public meetings during the planning process. We hade a core group of committed people- some lobbyists- some committed volunteers who poured their blood sweat & tears into this. We begged and pleaded with the public to join various committees to have their say on matters of substance. Yet NO ONE came!
Yet when it's time to vote- when the 17 people who probably spent 5,000 man hours drafting the best bill they could- about 600 people (not a single one of which could be bothered to participate) came to speak against it.
I gave them each 45 seconds to speak. Add in the transition time walking to and from the podium that's 10 FUCKING hours.
Many left so it took only 6 hours. Yet it was clear not more than a dozen of them had actually read the 85 page document and could speak intelligently about it.
So yeah it looks oh so awful when you see a YouTube clip of a mic being cut off. Yet as someone who was there on the battle lines as the 2.5 years of planning was voted upon, all I can say is FUCK THESE SPEAKERS who show up at the last minute to speak!
The State Assembly of West Virginia is also against free speech. In fact, they are so much against free speech that they forbid "personal comments" about other members of the assembly. Case in point, assemblywoman Lissa Lucas is forcible ejected from the speaker stand for reading a list of politician names, donor names and amounts of campaign contributions.
www.youtube.com/embed/fHl1rYpXWis
It is amazing to see that even a state assembly can have rules that censor the speech of its lawfully and duly elected members. Absolutely frightening. Should this not be a case taken to the Supreme Court?
As someone who acted as parliamentarian at a contentious hearing I applaud the removal of these people.
In my case we had 125 WEEKS of public meetings during the planning process. We hade a core group of committed people- some lobbyists- some committed volunteers who poured their blood sweat & tears into this. We begged and pleaded with the public to join various committees to have their say on matters of substance. Yet NO ONE came!
Yet when it's time to vote- when the 17 people who probably spent 5,000 man hours drafting the best bill they could- about 600 people (not a single one of which could be bothered to participate) came to speak against it.
I gave them each 45 seconds to speak. Add in the transition time walking to and from the podium that's 10 FUCKING hours.
Many left so it took only 6 hours. Yet it was clear not more than a dozen of them had actually read the 85 page document and could speak intelligently about it.
So yeah it looks oh so awful when you see a YouTube clip of a mic being cut off. Yet as someone who was there on the battle lines as the 2.5 years of planning was voted upon, all I can say is FUCK THESE SPEAKERS who show up at the last minute to speak!
69
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 13, 8:43pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 13, 8:43pm
errc says
Yeah, I didn't ask, but I have no problem doing it. Takes about a minute. If I see a personal attack, I don't approve.
I can probably count the ones I've not approved on one hand in maybe two or three weeks now. And all were ad hom drivebys by Anonymous Cowards, as far as I can remember.
So it’s official! We have another new mod
Yeah, I didn't ask, but I have no problem doing it. Takes about a minute. If I see a personal attack, I don't approve.
I can probably count the ones I've not approved on one hand in maybe two or three weeks now. And all were ad hom drivebys by Anonymous Cowards, as far as I can remember.
70
WookieMan
2018 Feb 13, 8:50pm
WookieMan
2018 Feb 13, 8:50pm
TwoScoopsPlissken says
Sneaky Patrick. I had no idea. My hasty comment above was poorly worded:
WookieMan says
I was checking threads and didn't realize what you were talking about, ha! I'm check some other things out on the site tonight, that's for sure.
Yeah, I didn't ask, but I have no problem doing it.
Sneaky Patrick. I had no idea. My hasty comment above was poorly worded:
WookieMan says
What thread is it in? I'm check recent stuff now
I was checking threads and didn't realize what you were talking about, ha! I'm check some other things out on the site tonight, that's for sure.
71
justme
2018 Feb 14, 2:02am
justme
2018 Feb 14, 2:02am
anon_349ac says
Bogus argument. You probably wrote a bad law. Then you complain that people would rather speak out against the law than participate in the writing of said bad law? Look, if your intent was deemed bad to begin with, why would people legitimize it by participating? Why should they have read every detail of 85 pages of what they know is generally wrong, just to see if there might exist some gold nugget of goodness in there? The goodness of a law is not measured by how much time somebody spent writing it, but by what the intent and consequence of the law is.
>>We hade a core group of committed people- some lobbyists- some committed volunteers who poured their blood sweat & tears into this.
See the problem here? Oh, those poor hard-working lobbyists that did not get the law they worked so hard for. Oh, the disrespect of the voters that did not like our bad law! Oh, the humanity!
As someone who acted as parliamentarian at a contentious hearing I applaud the removal of these people.
Bogus argument. You probably wrote a bad law. Then you complain that people would rather speak out against the law than participate in the writing of said bad law? Look, if your intent was deemed bad to begin with, why would people legitimize it by participating? Why should they have read every detail of 85 pages of what they know is generally wrong, just to see if there might exist some gold nugget of goodness in there? The goodness of a law is not measured by how much time somebody spent writing it, but by what the intent and consequence of the law is.
>>We hade a core group of committed people- some lobbyists- some committed volunteers who poured their blood sweat & tears into this.
See the problem here? Oh, those poor hard-working lobbyists that did not get the law they worked so hard for. Oh, the disrespect of the voters that did not like our bad law! Oh, the humanity!
72
anonymous
2018 Feb 14, 7:52am
justme says
The "bad law" we wrote was to clean up a hazardous dump site and turn it into a river walk. It cost 175 million to clean it up and since the city didn't have 175 million we offered to sell a portion of it to a hotel who would pay.
The people who spoke out against it were the homeowners who would have to put up with a temporary road closure and "noisy trucks" which hauled off the spent nickel catalyst which seeped into the river. To gain sympathy they accused us of "being in the pockets of developers".
5 years later, the area is thriving, people enjoy the park or the adjacent hotel to sit on the river walk. We put property which was abandoned and toxic back to public use, added to the tax rolls via the hotel and cleaned up the river without spending a dime of the public's money. How is this bad?
anon_349ac saysAs someone who acted as parliamentarian at a contentious hearing I applaud the removal of these people.
Bogus argument. You probably wrote a bad law. Then you complain that people would rather speak out against the law than participate in the writing of said bad law? Look, if your intent was deemed bad to begin with, why would people legitimize it by participating? Why should they have read every detail of 85 pages of what they know is generally wrong, just to see if there might exist some gold nugget of goodness in there? The goodness of a law is not measured by how much time somebody spent writing it, but by what the intent and consequence of the law is.
>>We hade a core group of committed people- some lobbyists- some committed volunteers who poured their blood sweat & tears into this.
See the problem here? Oh, those poor hard-working lobbyists that did...
The "bad law" we wrote was to clean up a hazardous dump site and turn it into a river walk. It cost 175 million to clean it up and since the city didn't have 175 million we offered to sell a portion of it to a hotel who would pay.
The people who spoke out against it were the homeowners who would have to put up with a temporary road closure and "noisy trucks" which hauled off the spent nickel catalyst which seeped into the river. To gain sympathy they accused us of "being in the pockets of developers".
5 years later, the area is thriving, people enjoy the park or the adjacent hotel to sit on the river walk. We put property which was abandoned and toxic back to public use, added to the tax rolls via the hotel and cleaned up the river without spending a dime of the public's money. How is this bad?
73
justme
2018 Feb 14, 8:41am
justme
2018 Feb 14, 8:41am
anon_349ac says
The above may have something to do with the resistance against the law? Lobbyists, developers, selling of public lands for below-market value? Seriously, there is no way to verify your version of the story. But in any case, the original argument is about censorship, in a state assembly house no less. It is frightening that you can argue against free speech in the state assembly of West VIrginia.
the city didn't have 175 million we offered to sell a portion of it to a hotel who would pay.
The above may have something to do with the resistance against the law? Lobbyists, developers, selling of public lands for below-market value? Seriously, there is no way to verify your version of the story. But in any case, the original argument is about censorship, in a state assembly house no less. It is frightening that you can argue against free speech in the state assembly of West VIrginia.
74
anonymous
2018 Feb 14, 10:05am
How is it selling for below market value when the cost of clean up was 50% more than comps (i.e. It had negative value which is why it sat fallow for 40 years)
With regard to censorship, 14 proposals were floated over the years - yet the most ardent opponents flung poo at all of them. When I would ask "ok what would YOU do to clean up the Robinson Terminal?" Their response was a dismissive "oh I don't know that's for you to figure out". Well no shit Sherlock we tried 14 different times to have you work with us on a plan yet 14 times you declined. You say "get rid of the toxic terminal" and when we come up with 14 different ways to do it, none of which cost you money, all you can do is take a shit on it? Seriously?
So yes, when it comes to a public forum, and we open up the floor for the public to comment, before the vote - we expect you to be informed. And when there are 600 of you - 50 of which show up at every meeting to fling poo at every proposal no matter the subject - we will limit your time. And if you don't come prepared to speak intelligently, we will boot you from the microphone (always allowing you submit to your complaint in writing to become part of the public record, which you never do) and allow the few people who want to debate the merits of certain sections of it to not spend 10+ hours sitting around listening to BS.
With regard to censorship, 14 proposals were floated over the years - yet the most ardent opponents flung poo at all of them. When I would ask "ok what would YOU do to clean up the Robinson Terminal?" Their response was a dismissive "oh I don't know that's for you to figure out". Well no shit Sherlock we tried 14 different times to have you work with us on a plan yet 14 times you declined. You say "get rid of the toxic terminal" and when we come up with 14 different ways to do it, none of which cost you money, all you can do is take a shit on it? Seriously?
So yes, when it comes to a public forum, and we open up the floor for the public to comment, before the vote - we expect you to be informed. And when there are 600 of you - 50 of which show up at every meeting to fling poo at every proposal no matter the subject - we will limit your time. And if you don't come prepared to speak intelligently, we will boot you from the microphone (always allowing you submit to your complaint in writing to become part of the public record, which you never do) and allow the few people who want to debate the merits of certain sections of it to not spend 10+ hours sitting around listening to BS.
75
justme
2018 Feb 14, 10:15am
justme
2018 Feb 14, 10:15am
anon_349ac says
False analogy. The West Virgina case was pure censorship of content, not a time limit.
- we will limit your time.
False analogy. The West Virgina case was pure censorship of content, not a time limit.
76
anonymous
2018 Feb 14, 10:44am
By the way - the content restriction came in after one guy in the 90s would bus in the homeless and have them prattle on in exchange for a dollar. Eventually the comittee members (many of which are unpaid) would have to leave to go to work or pick up their kid, and the vote would fail.
After 2-3 instances of this everyone realized the value of their time and the content restrictions (with the ability to submit whatever you want in writing) were implemented.
After 2-3 instances of this everyone realized the value of their time and the content restrictions (with the ability to submit whatever you want in writing) were implemented.
77
anonymous
2018 Feb 14, 10:45am
We do that too. In an effort to move things along we ask people to limit their comments to the subject matter always giving people the option to submit whatever they want in writing to become part of the public record.
Either way, the guy who has a question about something on page 46 will be given more latitude at the mike than the bitter gal who throws around platitudes about "corporate profits" who never read it or the one who shows up with tape over her lips and mumbles holding a sign we are denying her right to speak.
Again its sometimes 10 freaking hours and we all have shit to do - so it's a balancing act. By law we must let anyone speak but how do you suggest we sift though the relevant comments (which occasionally change minds) and the professional time wasters who have a history of nothing but flinging poo?
Either way, the guy who has a question about something on page 46 will be given more latitude at the mike than the bitter gal who throws around platitudes about "corporate profits" who never read it or the one who shows up with tape over her lips and mumbles holding a sign we are denying her right to speak.
Again its sometimes 10 freaking hours and we all have shit to do - so it's a balancing act. By law we must let anyone speak but how do you suggest we sift though the relevant comments (which occasionally change minds) and the professional time wasters who have a history of nothing but flinging poo?
78
justme
2018 Feb 14, 11:27am
justme
2018 Feb 14, 11:27am
anon_349ac says
What on earth are you talking about? This was the case of an elected representative in West Virgina that was not allowed to use all of her duly alotted time because the majority leader wanted to censor her. Don't come trotting out a false analogy of someone supposedly paying people to complain at a PUBLIC meeting.
By the way - the content restriction came in after one guy in the 90s would bus in the homeless and have them prattle on in exchange for a dollar.
What on earth are you talking about? This was the case of an elected representative in West Virgina that was not allowed to use all of her duly alotted time because the majority leader wanted to censor her. Don't come trotting out a false analogy of someone supposedly paying people to complain at a PUBLIC meeting.
79
anonymous
2018 Feb 14, 1:13pm
justme says
Ok. Same goes for all the comittee members at our weekly meetings. In order to save time the chairman sets an agenda and the 5 or so topics that are subject to discussion. If you use your time to speak on something else (I.e waste time) you will be declared out of order, and if you continue, you will be removed. Of course you can submit your response in writing or if a majority wants to hear what you have to say they overrule the chairman and you continue to speak unfettered.
For what it's worth - one of the poo slingers was a ranking comittee member who couldn't be bothered to show up at the weekly meetings or participate in the future of the waterfront. She was elected by the "noisy trucks" wing. Early on when she did participate but when she found out all plans involve SOME noisy trucks she would only show up to fling poo and waste time.
anon_349ac saysBy the way - the content restriction came in after one guy in the 90s would bus in the homeless and have them prattle on in exchange for a dollar.
What on earth are you talking about? This was the case of an elected representative in West Virgina that was not allowed to use all of her duly alotted time because the majority leader wanted to censor her. Don't come trotting out a false analogy of someone supposedly paying people to complain at a PUBLIC meeting.
Ok. Same goes for all the comittee members at our weekly meetings. In order to save time the chairman sets an agenda and the 5 or so topics that are subject to discussion. If you use your time to speak on something else (I.e waste time) you will be declared out of order, and if you continue, you will be removed. Of course you can submit your response in writing or if a majority wants to hear what you have to say they overrule the chairman and you continue to speak unfettered.
For what it's worth - one of the poo slingers was a ranking comittee member who couldn't be bothered to show up at the weekly meetings or participate in the future of the waterfront. She was elected by the "noisy trucks" wing. Early on when she did participate but when she found out all plans involve SOME noisy trucks she would only show up to fling poo and waste time.
80
Patrick
2018 Feb 22, 8:58pm
Patrick
2018 Feb 22, 8:58pm
Sorry, image uploading is borken at the moment. Will fix it tomorrow.
82
Patrick
2018 Feb 22, 9:38pm
Patrick
2018 Feb 22, 9:38pm
"Borken" is a good description.
When it works again I'll say it "wroks".
One letter transposition of 'o' and 'r' either way.
When it works again I'll say it "wroks".
One letter transposition of 'o' and 'r' either way.
83
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 28, 8:55am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 28, 8:55am
anon_8f378 has over 300 comments in the past few months.
Maybe force anons with, say, over 50 comments, to get an account or FOAD? Since it's obvious most are butthurt former posters who are coming back anyway though they announced their flounce.
Harder to remember "Anon-8f378" then "JosephJoeJoe" or whatever.
Maybe force anons with, say, over 50 comments, to get an account or FOAD? Since it's obvious most are butthurt former posters who are coming back anyway though they announced their flounce.
Harder to remember "Anon-8f378" then "JosephJoeJoe" or whatever.
84
Patrick
2018 Feb 28, 9:23am
Patrick
2018 Feb 28, 9:23am
I think the anon thing has worked fairly well in making it easier to get started with the site. It was also intended to de-couple ego from comments to some degree. True that people are harder to recognize as anon_1234 than a real name, which is a bad thing, but then they also are less sensitive about insults to that anon identity, which is a good thing.
I could make it so that registered users can choose to see more memorable names instead of anon_1234, or perhaps show the nearest city with more than 20,000 people to make them more memorable. So we'd have anon_1234_chicago or whatever.
I could make it so that registered users can choose to see more memorable names instead of anon_1234, or perhaps show the nearest city with more than 20,000 people to make them more memorable. So we'd have anon_1234_chicago or whatever.
86
anonymous
2018 Feb 28, 9:28am
anon_961a0 says
@patrick right?
Patrick saysI think the anon thing has worked fairly well in making it easier to get started with the site. It was also intended to de-couple ego from comments to some degree. True that people are harder to recognize as anon_1234 than a real name, which is a bad thing, but then they also are less sensitive about insults to that anon identity, which is a good thing.
I could make it so that registered users can choose to see more memorable names instead of anon_1234, or perhaps show the nearest city with more than 20,000 people to make them more memorable. So we'd have anon_1234_chicago or whatever.
If you got rid of anons then you could get rid of moderators too.
@patrick right?
87
anonymous
2018 Feb 28, 9:32am
Patrick says
If you got rid of anons then you could get rid of moderators too.
I think the anon thing has worked fairly well in making it easier to get started with the site. It was also intended to de-couple ego from comments to some degree. True that people are harder to recognize as anon_1234 than a real name, which is a bad thing, but then they also are less sensitive about insults to that anon identity, which is a good thing.
I could make it so that registered users can choose to see more memorable names instead of anon_1234, or perhaps show the nearest city with more than 20,000 people to make them more memorable. So we'd have anon_1234_chicago or whatever.
If you got rid of anons then you could get rid of moderators too.
88
Goran_K
2018 Feb 28, 9:37am
Goran_K
2018 Feb 28, 9:37am
People barely behave WITH moderators, they hesitate to troll 100% under the threat of having their comments nuked.
I can't imagine what the site would be without moderators. Oh yeah, we tried that, it wasn't working.
I can't imagine what the site would be without moderators. Oh yeah, we tried that, it wasn't working.
89
anonymous
2018 Feb 28, 9:37am
Goran_K says
Be interesting indeed
Patrick saysSo we'd have anon_1234_chicago or whatever.
I like this.
Be interesting indeed
90
Patrick
2018 Feb 28, 9:52am
Patrick
2018 Feb 28, 9:52am
OK, it's on the list. Anyone know a quick way to discover cities from IP addresses? I know there are commercial services, but I don't need very high accuracy.
There is a free service at ipinfo.io, but it's not at all accurate:
curl ipinfo.io/$(curl icanhazip.com)
"city": "Petaluma",
"region": "California",
I'm about 100 miles from Petaluma at the moment.
There is a free service at ipinfo.io, but it's not at all accurate:
curl ipinfo.io/$(curl icanhazip.com)
"city": "Petaluma",
"region": "California",
I'm about 100 miles from Petaluma at the moment.
91
Goran_K
2018 Feb 28, 9:54am
Goran_K
2018 Feb 28, 9:54am
Patrick says
I don't think it can be 100% accurate. For instance some people use proxy servers (I use one through the California Department of Education). But I think just having something more identifying than anon1234 would be even incrementally better.
OK, it's on the list. Anyone know a quick way to discover cities from IP addresses? I know there are commercial services, but I don't need very high accuracy.
There is a free service at ipinfo.io, but it's not at all accurate:
curl ipinfo.io/$(curl icanhazip.com)
"city": "Petaluma",
"region": "California",
I'm about 100 miles from Petaluma at the moment.
I don't think it can be 100% accurate. For instance some people use proxy servers (I use one through the California Department of Education). But I think just having something more identifying than anon1234 would be even incrementally better.
92
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 28, 9:55am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 28, 9:55am
Patrick says
Great Idea!
I could make it so that registered users can choose to see more memorable names instead of anon_1234, or perhaps show the nearest city with more than 20,000 people to make them more memorable. So we'd have anon_1234_chicago or whatever.
Great Idea!
« First « Previous Comments 53 - 92 of 602 Next » Last » Search these comments
Patrick.net is an online forum, a bit like Twitter or Reddit, but with much more freedom of speech than either of those. Almost anything goes, but a few things don't, such as deliberately personally insulting another user, or deliberately misrepresenting what another user said.
I got the patrick.net domain name back in 1995 when I was one day too late for patrick.com. Missing the .com name turned out to be fine. I prefer the .net name now because life is all about human networks. This site was just my personal blog from 1995 to 2004.
In 2004 I started writing about the housing bubble, which catapulted the site to national fame for a while. I was interviewed on NPR, on Nightline on TV, and in other corporate media that I have since learned to recognize as poison. Here are my original the articles about the housing bubble (the dates on them are much later because I updated them):
https://patrick.net/post/1282720/2015-07-11-ten-reasons-it-s-a-terrible-time-to
https://patrick.net/post/1282721/2015-07-11-eight-groups-who-lie-about-the-housing
https://patrick.net/post/1282722/2015-07-11-37-bogus-arguments-about-housing
The big housing bubble popped in 2008, and traffic fell, since it was no longer controversial to assert that we really had had a housing bubble.
About then, I decided to just let the public discuss other topics with each other and wrote my own forum software. I'm a programmer, so that was fun. At first I was kind of disturbed at the number of conservatives on the site, but as I discussed things with them and saw San Francisco literally turn to shit under far-left Democrat extremists, I changed my thinking.
And yet I didn't change my thinking all that much, because once again, I'm opposing corruption of government by the oligarchy. Before, my enemy was the NAR (National Association of Realtors) and I still think the NAR is nothing but institutionalized crime, but there are bigger fish to fry now, especially since the worldwide campaign to inject every human with a dangerous and ineffective genetic experiment, which was never approved by the FDA. (They approved "Comirnaty", which is not available, to deceive the public.)
https://tobyrogers.substack.com/p/thinking-points-september-21-2022
I could go on, but you'll get the idea by reading the site.
I have a platform of ideas for improving America: https://patrick.net/post/1303173/2017-02-19-patrick-s-platform
And an explanation for how we got to this point.
Site Rules
1. Do not deliberately insult the other users personally.
2. Do not deliberately insult the site. It's free to use and does not even have ads.
3. Do not misquote people.
4. Do not post porn except in the tits thread. No actual sex and no homo porn please.
5. If you feel you must post racist or anti-semitic jokes, please put them in the political incorrectness thread.
6. Do not post illegal content, unless the US law making the content illegal is itself clearly unconstitutional. In that case, please do post it!
7. Do not threaten another user with violence or you will be quickly and permanently banned.
8. Do not post spam.
9. Do not promote the obviously ineffective and very dangerous toxxine. Millions have died from it, far more than from the virus.
If you're wondering why your comment was flagged, please click the "edit" link on it. It should be pretty obvious when you read your own words again. If you think there was a mistake about the content being flagged, please write p@patrick.net When you edit and save your own flagged comment, it will go back into moderation where it will get reviewed by a moderator again.
If you're suspicious that comments are flagged for political reasons, note that you can actually see any flagged comment in the html source of that page. Use "View Source" in your browser. Yes, it's inconvenient, but that's deliberate, to keep those comments out of the conversation stream.
Please use this effective debate technique:
1. State your opponent's position so that he agrees with it 100%. This is so that you argue against what your opponent is really saying.
2. State points of agreement, and anything you learned from your opponent.
3. Give your reasoning for why your opponent is mistaken.
4. Make it clear that you are attacking only the point and not the person.
Site Functionality
If you ignore another user, you will not see that user's threads or comments. To see whom you're ignoring and to unignore, look on your edit profile page.
To get another user's attention, mention that user in a comment with an @ character prepended to his username ( for example @Patrick ) and then he will get an email of that comment, unless he has emails turned off.
If you type or paste in an image URL ending in .jpg, .png, or .gif it will be converted into the visible image in a thread or comment. You can also upload images, mp3 audio, mp4 video, and pdfs (under 10MB) from your local computer.
You may not post large sections of copyrighted material unless you have explicit permission from the copyright owner. But excerpts for discussion are fine, and in fact protected by law.
If you include an embed video url from Rumble, Bitchute, Vimeo, NewTube, or BrandNewTube, the thread or comment will display the video. Please try to avoid YouTube urls, since YouTube routinely censors or demonetizes politically incorrect videos, such as those about the dangers of the toxxine.
These basic html tags all work in threads and comments: a audio b blockquote br code del font hr i iframe img li ol p strike sub sup u ul video vsmall
You can surround a word or phrase with the * character to make it bold, or the _ character to make it italic, or surround a word with - to
strikeit, or you can just use the b or the i or the strike html tag.Searching
Prepend + to require a word or - to exclude it: +Tunnel -Sky
Search for phrases by putting them in quotes: "Tunnel in the Sky"
Search for the beginning of a word by appending the star character: Tunne*
Shortcuts
^t will jump to the text input box at the bottom of a thread
^s will jump to the search box at the top of each page
^f will open your file select menu to let you select an image or pdf to insert in the text box
If you click "pin" at the top of a thread, it will get saved to your pinned list. For example, here is patrick's pinned list
There is a thread for each zip code in the US. You can have local discussions there about anything, or you can post things for sale, etc. To find the thread for a zip code, just do a search for the town name or zip code.
I also have a list of all US Congressmen as separate threads, where you are encouraged to comment on how good of a job you think they're doing:
https://patrick.net/post/1377838/2022-11-29-us-congressmen-lists