rationalia.com

Gawdzilla wrote:Play nice then.

Consider me niced.

Gawdzilla wrote:

paddy_rice wrote:

Gawdzilla wrote:You didn't notice that reminder? You quoted it.

Did I? My goof. Must have missed that.

Well consider yourself warned. As you're "new" here you should know that we adapt to the situation quickly. So if you suddenly find yourself in the outer darkness . . .

...then I'll be lonely.

Gawdzilla wrote:You didn't notice that reminder? You quoted it.

Did I? My goof. Must have missed that.

Paddy, "I don't like sleaze or lechery, which is what I suspect was contained in those PMs. Simple as that." is unproven by your own admission and an attack on another member. You're about one post from a vacation. So hold on, am I at the reminder or warning stage? The reminder stage kind of passed...

Or more pertinently: "Those who intentionally harass other members will be penalised. Intentional malicious trolling and use of offensive language, images or jokes, with the intention of harassing, intimidating, tormenting or persecuting another member, or in the knowledge that such posts are likel...

Fortunately we have the wonderfully nebulous "play nice" rule. I wonder whether asking someone to divulge contents of a PM while spinning the request in a knowing http://thinking-aloud.co.uk/temp/hsr.png and slightly insinuating http://thinking-aloud.co.uk/temp/hsr.png way, or baiting other members...

Because he's yet to actually send/receive any PMs here? :? Indeed. And what's more, I haven't revealed anything that hasn't already been talked about on other threads. Being Jesuitical: It seems it might be OK to ask someone else to divulge a PM, as long you don't actually do it yourself ... :read:...

Paddy, before you go asking members to divulge the contents of Private Messages, might I suggest you read the forum rules here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449 before you inadvertently break some of them and land yourself in trouble. I've already read the rules, and I'm in no d...

CJ wrote:

Ah Chris, I thought you might be lurking somewhere! Care to shed any more light on those PMs between you and DD? I'd love to know!

devogue wrote:Welcome paddy! I can't see any problem with your op. Besides, mischief is where it's at :he he:

I agree, although I think we're in a minority!

Are you making some sort of allegation here? Well, if people are genuinely "threatened" by a given subject, as opposed to just being "uncomfortable" or even "disgusted" about it then I agree. But I cannot see, so forgive me, how one can feel that way given the nature of fora. To be more specific, c...

As to the place sex/sexuality has in a 'rationalist' forum - the answer in fact is that it can have a very positive place, when a particular ethos is fostered. But just to humour your mindset - what place does frivolous off-topic discussion have on a 'rationalist' board, or indeed any board with a ...

The Simpsons has got better with time, so have we. :doh: ;) You are joking, surely? The Simpsons started to go downhill after series 11 or so, and the newest ones are cringe-worthy. I mean, really, really bad, despite what Chuck Paluhniuk says. I suppose you'll deny sarcasm as well. :ddpan: Certain...

DP wrote:Mischief:
1. Harm or evil caused by an agent or brought about by a particular cause.
2. One who causes mischief. In a milder sense, one who causes petty annoyances. mischief-maker.
3. Vexatious or annoying conduct.

A dictionary definition. Wow, that killed the mood.

I'd imagine that it's similar to the reason why TAF would rather forget that time in their history. It's hard to look back on past conflicts without reassigning blame to those involved, and that's typically not something you don't want to do when the bridges are almost rebuilt. Ah, I see! Everyone'...

Tigger wrote:It seems like rather an odd "first post" to make, don'tcherthink?

It was something I never felt comfortable asking about on RDF, and I thought this would be the perfect place to start. Seriously, what is with all this suspicion?