@Red:
IL has posted on the fix.
@Imperious:
OK the problem is mostly fixed. The OP at this time can only lock but not remove topics. Never again can this crap happen.
Djensen will remove the lock topic button soon and get us those badges “customizer”
The “remove topic” tab has disappeared for me in this thread.�  I’m not sure where the lock feature is, it might be in progress.�  EDIT:�  Ah, the lock topic was only to be temporary until it was removed.
And that my friends is why it is important to suggest fixes when problems become apparent.
I agree.
Thanks for you investment of time on this forum. And leading this topic on this specific problem.
Thanks also to IL and Djensen which are correcting this issue. And all the others for your participation on this thread.
I would just add:
Serenity prayer is not a prayer for immobility.
There is two part in it: things which cannot change and things that can change.
Glad to see this issue belongs to the second part.
Unfortunately, with the remove topic option gone, this particular thread will be around forever.
Well perhaps… the moderator can remove it, but their must be a reason.
@Imperious:
Well perhaps… the moderator can remove it, but their must be a reason.
How about the fact that new conscripts will come to this thread and see many members arguing about the problems of this site? Leaving this thread up only makes A&A.org look bad to new members. Besides, if anything it should be moved… it has nothing to do with G40.
@Young:
@Imperious:
Well perhaps… the moderator can remove it, but their must be a reason.
How about the fact that new conscripts will come to this thread and see many members arguing about the problems of this site? Leaving this thread up does nothing but make A&A.org look bad to new members. Besides, if anything it should be moved… it has nothing to do with G40.
Unfortunately you’re right about new members.
@Young:
How about the fact that new conscripts will come to this thread and see many members arguing about the problems of this site? Leaving this thread up only makes A&A.org look bad to new members. Besides, if anything it should be moved… it has nothing to do with G40.
You’ve been pretty eager to fling insults my way in it (you might call it slinging “feces”) rather than contributing to identifying the problem. You know what, I’m happy to leave it as it is. Your second post in this thread suggested you feel the same way, leave 'em be, work things out, rather than deleting the thread.
And yes, it does have to do with G40 as that was what the improperly deleted thread was about.
Hint: The thread will sink on its own soon enough since the problem that created it has been rectified.
@SS:
It’s called enter thread at your own risk Red Harvest. It will come to the point of the Mods will tell you to knock it off or ban you from site or ( its probably already started now ) people will not respond to your posts anymore. His said he was sorry, come on lets move on.
I should have responded to this one sooner…
Uh, no, he didn’t say he was sorry to me. If anything he’s been more of jerk to me. No one who participated in the thread he deleted has agreed with his claim of a hijack.
If I’m going to be banned for identifying a flaw in the site architecture and helping to get it corrected, then I hope it is sooner, rather than later.
As for moving on, I’m all for that. The problem that was the source of this thread has now been addressed. This thread will sink on its own.
Naw, You’re pissed cause’ nobody saw your “knock -out punch” on Uncrustable’s thread. If you don’t like Uncrustable and his comments you should have been a grown-up and walked away. Instead you lobbied for restrictions for everyone and we all get to pay.
Naw, You’re pissed cause’ nobody saw your “knock -out punch” on Uncrustable’s thread. If you don’t like Uncrustable and his comments you should have been a grown-up and walked away. Instead you lobbied for restrictions for everyone and we all get to pay.
Well, the ones who are “paying” and whining about the change are ones who admit they have a habit of unnecessarily deleting the posts of others because they don’t like what others are saying. Somehow I’m just not feeling their pain.
As for walking away from the prior thread, I was ready to several times in the short time I participated. I made my points and was ready to bow out (much like this one.) It was Uncrustable’s tone and circular logic in response to each that made me dig in. Baron and I were having a productive discussion at the time, even though we didn’t agree on everything and I’m sure we still don’t! I provided what he requested as best I could…and I learned some things in the process. It was a simple civil exchange of ideas/calculations/data where I believe both of us profited–I fully admit that I did.
So here’s the thing, I was ready to leave my data and my points out there for folks to consider and/or reject as they found fit. Unlike a certain other person, I didn’t state that there was only one perfect answer. Instead I considered it an optimization and made my case for that. I even said that C10 was better than C12, I just disagreed about it being best, and explained why it wasn’t “perfect” (as Uncrustable termed it) and much more disruptive…something Uncrustable unwittingly confirmed. Uncrustable found the information so destructive to his argument that he wouldn’t allow that, so he deleted everything. It wasn’t just my information that others have said they wanted to see, but theirs and his as well. While I didn’t agree that his formula was the be all/end all, I saw no reason that his posts should be deleted any more than the others or mine. And you want to defend that capability?
Agreeing to disagree is fine. Deleting the posts of those who disagree with you to hide them is cowardly at best.
I’ve already stated when/where in my opinion it might be appropriate to allow “remove topic.” The site owner has concluded to be less permissive than I would be (assuming that the functionality I would have sought is even possible.) I would be willing to support your argument in specific cases on this matter. So if you can articulate cases where such deletion is warranted, I will be willing to evaluate and support them on their merits, regardless of how you feel about me. We can do this by forum or PM as you like.
I would prefer to let this thread sink, but if folks want to continue to take potshots at me, I’ll be ready for them.
Your right, he didnt say he was sorry to you because he was probably pissed at you for hijacking his thread so he says. My point was if your going to keep bashing somebody, the Mods can do something about it. So we found the flaw. Its being fixed. Some like it some dont. Move on. Quit beating it in the ground. :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: My last post about this.
@Red:
@Young:
How about the fact that new conscripts will come to this thread and see many members arguing about the problems of this site? Leaving this thread up only makes A&A.org look bad to new members. Besides, if anything it should be moved… it has nothing to do with G40.
You’ve been pretty eager to fling insults my way in it (you might call it slinging “feces”) rather than contributing to identifying the problem.� You know what, I’m happy to leave it as it is.� Your second post in this thread suggested you feel the same way, leave 'em be, work things out, rather than deleting the thread.
And yes, it does have to do with G40 as that was what the improperly deleted thread was about.
Hint: The thread will sink on its own soon enough since the problem that created it has been rectified.�
My comment that you quoted above was a response to IL’s statement that a reason must exist in order to delete this thread, I was merely providing one… it was in no way an insult to you. However, I did insult you earlier, and that was because you attacked my friend Toblerone77 for his judgment in using the “remove topic” function in the past, and for accusing Uncrustable for being rude in his “cost of naval units” thread when you yourself have been less than mature. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on wether this thread has anything to do with 1940 Global, but I agree that it has served your purpose, and if IL thinks so… than I guess it’s the right thing to do for the benefit of the site. It will be interesting going forward to see if this was an isolated incident, or if the people involved in this debate will continue to behave in such a controversially manner… as for myself, I consider the slate clean.
Well Red Harvest you have achieved your goal. As for my advocation of the the remove topic button, I NEVER USED IT ONCE OVER AN ARGUMENT! I would bet that you’re going wish you had the option with this thread though.
Hello, im Uncrustable. President and CEO of BP. Our accidental drilling spill again in the gulf is a tragedy that should have never happened. And to all those affected i would like to say…im am deeply sorry. Im sorry… (*pets small dog)…wait…wtf…
:lol:
I’m assuming you don’t watch much southpark :P
@rjpeters70:
BP has given billions to charity, including an enormous amount to the Obama campaign. Obama administration then sues BP for $40billion following an accident. What? What did all that good will buy BP? Apparently, nothing.
BP did not give the Obama campaign any money as a corporation. Individuals who work for BP donated to the Obama campaign as private individuals, which amounted to ~70k in 2008 for Obama. That constituted roughly 0.0001% of 2008 Obama campaign fundraising, which definitely does not qualify as enormous.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000091&type=P&sort=A&cycle=2008
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/05/bp.lobbying/
Where did you get the idea that BP donated to Obama’s campaign as a corporation?
From Politico,
“During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.”
The article you just posted says $77,000 to Obama (slightly higher than the figure I cited since it also includes his Senate campaign).
This article implies some of that $77k came via PACs, but does not specify an amount or a PAC.
Politico cites the Center for Responsive Politics as their source, which is www.opensecrets.org, and the CRP confirmed that this money came from individuals.
But lets pretend for a moment that that 77k was from the corporation BP directly and not merely from individuals who happen to be BP employees: Are you saying the 77k should be able to buy off the President of the United States?
That’s a different argument than your original posts appeared to suggest.
I’ll take your word about BP attempting to be a “good citizen”, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have to pay for the damage caused by their activity.
Obviously BP did not want to dump oil into the ocean, but they can afford to pay for the damage and they have both a moral and a legal responsibility to do so.
What about the billions of dollars of losses suffered by the tourism and fishing industries?
@Uncrustable:
Hello, im Uncrustable. President and CEO of BP. Our accidental drilling spill again in the gulf is a tragedy that should have never happened. And to all those affected i would like to say…im am deeply sorry. Im sorry… (*pets small dog)…wait…wtf…
:lol:
WOW… You hijacked his thread without even trying.
Only a Mod can delete it now. :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
