Hound has questions!

[canpakes]

Context and intent, as well as content, are part of the equation. As example:

“I personally don't like cursing and I've refrained from it in nearly 200 posts over the past few months, but I'm going to go onto Moksha's new thread and call him a "damned retard" because Canpakes the moderator said it's not a personal insult.”

As for your claim, feel free to link to the post where I stated that and we can discuss further.

You had the option to replicate my post featuring my baby Homer Simpson when starting this thread, which would have positioned you as Canpakes, the typical poster on the board. You chose to exercise your moderator powers to eliminate my post from Schmo's thread.

It seems to me that this decision stemmed from your frustration over our differing political views.

Does a nonexistent cartoon character have personal political views?

I view the spamming of a thread with an image accompanied by no comment or defined context, or completely unrelated content, with no attempt to address the thread topic, as a derail.

This thread is becoming personal for you, and it seems you're leveraging your moderator powers in that regard.

It might be becoming personal for someone, but that someone may be much closer to you than you think. : D

[Some Schmo]

That's correct.

OK, so it's not actually a free speech board. Got it. And that's fine. I just wouldn't pretend it was a free speech board; we should own what it is.

I understand there being consequences for exercising free speech, but not restricting individual words in the first place.

But hey, you do your free speech board your way, and tell yourself you have a great thing. It's an illusion. Musk thinks Twitter is free speech too, and we know how delusional he is.

[Hound of Heaven]

That's correct.

OK, so it's not actually a free speech board. Got it. And that's fine. I just wouldn't pretend it was a free speech board; we should own what it is.

I understand there being consequences for exercising free speech, but not restricting individual words in the first place.

But hey, you do your free speech board your way, and tell yourself you have a great thing. It's an illusion. Musk thinks Twitter is free speech too, and we know how delusional he is.

This is a platform for free expression. Allow me to assist you, as it appears you are struggling to grasp the fundamental idea that Dr. Shades is attempting to convey.

No one on this board is preventing you from starting a thread in the Terrestrial Kingdom if you wish to create one that involves cursing and personally attacking other members. I will explain this in the simplest way I can, hoping that it will be clear to you. Mike Tyson, the boxer, is permitted to deliver powerful blows to his opponent while in the ring. The boxing commission permits him to engage in physical combat without facing arrest for violent behavior. However, that does not imply that Tyson can anticipate having the same liberty to physically confront others outside of the ring. He must conduct himself with proper decorum when he's outside the ring, just like everyone else.

Shades has constructed a boxing ring, and it goes by the name of the Terrestrial Kingdom. You can even invite others to join you there if they wish to engage in a verbal sparring match with you. It's quite straightforward, even for you. Just head over to the Terrestrial Kingdom, start a thread, and express your insults until you've had your fill of negativity. Once you've finished being unkind, you can return to your plans of relocating to Canada, where your freedom of speech is more restricted than it is here in America.

[Hound of Heaven]

You had the option to replicate my post featuring my baby Homer Simpson when starting this thread, which would have positioned you as Canpakes, the typical poster on the board. You chose to exercise your moderator powers to eliminate my post from Schmo's thread.

It seems to me that this decision stemmed from your frustration over our differing political views.

Does a nonexistent cartoon character have personal political views?

I view the spamming of a thread with an image accompanied by no comment or defined context, or completely unrelated content, with no attempt to address the thread topic, as a derail.

This thread is becoming personal for you, and it seems you're leveraging your moderator powers in that regard.

It might be becoming personal for someone, but that someone may be much closer to you than you think. : D

Once more, you are contradicting your initial statement in your first post where you stated, "No, not at all," in response to my question about whether it is against the rules for me to post pictures in a thread I didn't start.

Now you're stating that you see it as a derail, in your opinion. So, what is the answer?

So you did remove my baby Homer Simpson picture because you view it as a derail, didn't you?

[canpakes]

Does a nonexistent cartoon character have personal political views?

I view the spamming of a thread with an image accompanied by no comment or defined context, or completely unrelated content, with no attempt to address the thread topic, as a derail.

It might be becoming personal for someone, but that someone may be much closer to you than you think. : D

Once more, you are contradicting your initial statement in your first post where you stated, "No, not at all," in response to my question about whether it is against the rules for me to post pictures in a thread I didn't start.

You apparently didn’t read my reply. There’s no contradiction.

[Hound of Heaven]

Once more, you are contradicting your initial statement in your first post where you stated, "No, not at all," in response to my question about whether it is against the rules for me to post pictures in a thread I didn't start.

You apparently didn’t read my reply. There’s no contradiction.

You’re trying to escape from a ludicrous predicament that you created entirely by yourself. Your inability to manage your emotions led you to take an inappropriate action.

Rather than replicating my post and initiating a thread as Canpakes, the daily poster, you let your feelings take over and misused your moderator powers by deleting my baby Homer Simpson post and creating your own thread with it.

To begin with, my A.I.-generated image of baby Homer Simpson is rich in context. Let's explain the meaning of the picture in a simple way, just like I would to a three-year-old, so you can grasp it easily. Baby Homer is wearing a diaper, crying with tears streaming down his face, and his blue hair suggests he’s a progressive baby. I apologize if the context in that straightforward A.I. picture was missed by you, but for many of us, it’s quite clear what I intended to communicate.

You must acknowledge that you initiated this discussion out of emotion, and now that I'm pressing you on it, all you can do is attempt to rectify a mistake that is beyond recovery.

If you as a moderator suggest that every time someone shares a picture they must write a lengthy explanation of its meaning, you're essentially implying that those viewing the image are too stupid to grasp its significance without a detailed description. Is that what you, Canpakes, are telling everyone on the board? That if we post a picture, we need to ensure it's explained thoroughly with an accompanying statement?

You'd serve yourself better by just deleting this thread. You can't recover. I won't hold it against you.

[canpakes]

You apparently didn’t read my reply. There’s no contradiction.

You’re trying to escape from a ludicrous predicament that you created entirely by yourself. Your inability to manage your emotions led you to take an inappropriate action.

You’re free to disagree with me. Toss a tantrum about it all week, if you wish.

Rather than replicating my post …

That’s not a feature here. But, do go on.

… and initiating a thread as Canpakes, the daily poster, you let your feelings take over and misused your moderator powers by deleting my baby Homer Simpson post and creating your own thread with it.

Your opinion is noted.

To begin with, my A.I.-generated image of baby Homer Simpson is rich in context. Let's explain the meaning of the picture in a simple way, just like I would to a three-year-old, so you can grasp it easily. Baby Homer is wearing a diaper, crying with tears streaming down his face, and his blue hair suggests he’s a progressive baby. I apologize if the context in that straightforward A.I. picture was missed by you, but for many of us, it’s quite clear what I intended to communicate.

Sounds like that’s a derail.

You must acknowledge that you initiated this discussion out of emotion, and now that I'm pressing you on it, all you can do is attempt to rectify a mistake that is beyond recovery.

What will happen if I don’t bend to your imaginative musings? Will you post more angrily? : )

If you as a moderator suggest that every time someone shares a picture they must write a lengthy explanation of its meaning, you're essentially implying that those viewing the image are too stupid to grasp its significance without a detailed description.

I’d ask for you to point out where that was suggested, but you’ve already got a list of imagined grievances against several board members - and large swaths of the general public - that you cannot substantiate. We can toss this new grievance of yours onto that list.

Is that what you, Canpakes, are telling everyone on the board?

Like, through a mind control ray, or something? Do they sell this through Temu? I don’t want to download that app, so you’ll have to tell me if it’s available, because that sounds awesome.

That if we post a picture, we need to ensure it's explained thoroughly with an accompanying statement?

I don’t think that would help. As it is, you’re already in the habit of dropping a thousand words of complete nonsense into a post without having to include an image to amp up that nonsense. I don’t think that adding more word salad on top of a crappy A.I.-generated image is going change anything, based on your past performance.

You'd serve yourself better by just deleting this thread. You can't recover. I won't hold it against you.

Sorry, but not sorry. The thread is undeletable. You’ll need to find your safe space elsewhere.

[Hound of Heaven]

google images turkey

Canpakes, I'm sharing this picture along with a little backstory, just so you can grasp the true essence of why it’s making an appearance here. This explanation is exclusively for you, as I trust that anyone else who gazes upon the picture possesses the intellect to grasp its meaning without the crutch of a written guide.

Dear Canpakes, behold this delightful snapshot of a diaper-clad infant, clearly in the throes of distress. The evidence is unmistakable, tears cascade down the cherubic cheeks, and the expression on that tiny face tells a tale of woe that even the most seasoned drama queen would envy.

To connect the baby to you, I took the liberty of wielding a pan in one hand and a cake in the other, both quite reminiscent of the delightful items featured in your avatar.

Now, let’s weave all this context into a tapestry that will illuminate the charming essence of the delightful picture I shared.

Canpakes, your behavior in this thread has me thinking you might be channeling your inner toddler, so I enlisted the help of A.I. to articulate my feelings about you. It seems that most of us, in our collective sanity and rationality, have already grasped the essence of what this picture conveys. However, this written explanation is tailored just for you, as it appears that deciphering images isn't quite your forté.

If you’d like me to elaborate further, just give me a shout! I'm here to help.

[canpakes]

I think that you can still do better, Hound. I’m happy to see that the baby has the correct number of fingers and toes this time, but the fact that the weird pastry thing is bisecting a wrist is something that needs to be worked on.

[Bret Ripley]

... behold this delightful snapshot of a diaper-clad infant ...

Snapshot? Diaper?

... a tale of woe that even the most seasoned drama queen would envy.

A frequent piece of advice offered to authors is "write what you know." Well done, you!