@djsoapbubble said in Screencap Inquiry:

I do have a question in regards to screencaps. Are Moderators allowed to post additional screencaps to someone else's post?

Personally, I feel that 8 screenshots are good for full-length films. For 30 minutes or less, I consider 4 as fair. Selfishly, I'd consider two.

Someone or something posted additional screenshots to my post, and I was completely mortified when I saw it because the screencaps were trailer trash. I'm very meticulous. I ask in the name of God or Lucifer or gravel of cat litter to NOT do that again.

I hear ya - I don't like it when people litter my uploads with crappy screenshots either - what's worse is the "new ones" get displayed first!

Sadly, not only is there the ability to do this, it is NOT limited to mods/staff - On most torrents there is a link:

Add Screenshots and Covers
to make some extra SeedPoints

So, not only is it allowed, it is encouraged and rewarded (with SBP)!

On the flip side, there are still many posts with no "real" pic in the listing - a rule violation - so there's gotta be a way to alleviate that too...

Not Guilty on all counts

I would never second-guess the decision made by the jury - the ones who actually sat thru the trial and listened to ALL of the evidence... but, this kind of verdict is going to cause trouble:

• Right-wing nutjobs are going to see it as precedent-setting and we're going to see a LOT more "self-defense" blood-flow (ask Florida how well that worked here!)
• Left-wing nutjobs are going to riot, burn, and loot in the name of "social justice" (which is an idiotic claim)

IMHO, a complete "victory" for either side was problematic... finding him guilty of all of the "worst" counts didn't seem right - not from the evidence I saw... but finding him not guilty on all counts (and responsible for none of it) is equally problematic.

Time will tell, but this is not good news for the US justice system...

One more thing - those who make claims that this "ends the discussion" are delusional. There will now be civil trials from the victims.

As we've covered in these forums MANY (too many) times: there is a difference between what is legal and what is morally right. Criminal court handles what is legal, civil court handles what is morally right.

And no, there is no "double jeopardy" here - that only applies to the criminal counts...

This is far from over - but it was never going to be over, no matter what the verdicts! That's not where our country is right now... no side can take victory with aplomb, and no side can take defeat "sitting down"...

@eobox91103 said in Karen in FL files criminal charges because school library didn't censor a LGBTQ book.:

@bi4smooth said in Karen in FL files criminal charges because school library didn't censor a LGBTQ book.:

I don't think it's legal to drive naked in this state, much less attack people with your car while naked...

The Florida statues don't address specifically address driving while naked (would that be a DWN?), but it is a first degree misdemeanor to be "naked in public in a vulgar or indecent manner." This gives rise (!) to three questions:

1. Is being in one's car on a public road considered being "in public?"
2. Does being naked in itself inherently imply a "vulgar or indecent manner?"
3. What is the definition of "being naked?" Florida law is silent on this.

I'm not going to research the case law here, although there are probably some amusing precedents. I wouldn't, myself, want to drive while naked: I always wear the seat belt, and the lower portion of such would be in position to saw off my gentleman's bits. This would be uncomfortable was well as unsafe.

(As an aside, the definition of "naked" is not as straightforward as one might think. Some time back I was visiting a friend of mine in Washington, DC, and he took me to a gay bar that had male "dancers." They appeared to be completely naked, but on closer inspection (!), I noticed that they were wearing socks--and I was told that this was to quash any accusation that they were naked.)

ROFL - like 20 years ago (eek, maybe closer to 30?) I was visiting Indianapolis and was taken to a "private club" (I had to pay $5 at the door to get a membership!) and the dancers there all had something on - a sock, a headband, a glove.... something! But their "man parts" were all FULLY exposed, AND they would actually get ERECT during their act! (Probably the MOST explicit on-stage sex I'd seen to that point!) They never touched each other, but "members" certainly felt free to touch (caress? no poking, but caressing was allowed - but not directly on their dicks... but buttocks, nipples, etc were fair game!)... and this definitely contributed to the erections!

I just want to say again - this is a Florida case...

Here's a fun-fact about Florida... we're up-to-our-nose-hairs in crazy people!

Case in point: Naked Clearwater man attacks woman on the other side of the state

And that's in TODAY'S NEWS... just google "naked man drives" and the top entries all talk about dudes in Florida! (I don't think it's legal to drive naked in this state, much less attack people with your car while naked...

@lololulu19 said in Required military service... or?:

In many countries, including Russia, all males are supposed to spend a year in military service.

I think they should have alternatives to military service.. such as spending a year making gay porn!
This would have an added benefit. Many gay guys don't decide they are gay until they are in their late 20's, and have already had children!
If those guys had experience gay sex BEFORE having children, a lot of them would never have had children... thus reducing population growth!
Less population = less fuel needs = saving the world!

(I should be president instead of #senilejoe)

ROFL! I love it! A great way to reduce the cost of porn content (legit costs, not dark-web costs like our subscription fees here!) Mandatory porn! Mandatory gay porn!

However, I do think there is a fly in your ointment... by way of an example, many people fantasize about going to a nude beach - all those sexy naked bodies, just walking around! ooohhhh!

BUT, if you ever get to a real nude beach, you'll see that most people do NOT have "beautiful bodies" - at least not "porn beautiful" bodies... there would be a LOT of porn with downright ugly, slightly mis-formed dudes going at each other... not exactly MY fantasy!

And that's what porn is supposed to be, no? Fantasy!

Still, I like the idea of mandatory military service, or else prove that you've at least tried gay sex... say, a minimum of a dozen different times with at least 4-6 different guys! (Can I volunteer to be a tester - someone who confirms their gay sex eligibility??????)

NOTE: Because this is the "Politics and Debate" forum, I should make it clear that this is a "fun" posting, and not a serious suggestion for actual national policy...

@raphjd said in HOAX - Australian MP's trans-daughter victim of hate crime:

@bi4smooth

Feng Feng talking out of his ass again.

If I was a transphobe, I would be saying "he" and "son", not she and daughter.

Also, it was made into more than what it was by her MP dad and the lunatic left, which you are part of which explains your crackhead post.

Being trans became a part of it when SHE claimed SHE was attacked for being trans. YOU DUMB ASS.

Nice try though, dick head.

Sorry, trans-hater (different from a trans-phobe) - the only part of this story that interested you was that a trans person was the criminal here.

Although, I do see your point about the father being a liberal MP... I'll give you that... it's entirely within the realm of your possibilities that you picked on this story because the criminal was tied - by family... even better... - to a liberal! Because Conservatives are pure and clean and perfect. Oh, but our families are off-limits!

You do know that parents cannot be charged for the crimes of their children, right? But don't let that stop you from slinging mud at a liberal!

@raphjd said in Karen in FL files criminal charges because school library didn't censor a LGBTQ book.:

@eobox91103

I'm sure there will be an age limit law for distributing porn, that you "innocently" forgot to quote as well.

Why are you advocating books describing sex in schools?

I'm surprised you aren't advocating porn videos as well, to be put in school libraries.

These are such touchy subjects... what IS and what IS NOT appropriate for a school library.

I mean, if we took out all the books the parents objected to, there would be like 4 books left! (Even the dictionary and encyclopedias have listings for PENIS!)

And obviously, we can't let the kids decide... there really would be porn in the Middle and High School libraries!

If only there was a profession - someone specially trained in how to make those decisions! I mean, this is important stuff - worthy of even a full-time job!

What would we even call such a profession... Library-girl (or Library-boy)? No, that would run into trouble with the trans community - besides, what if the person in the job was actually OLD!?!? Hmmm... Library-Scientist?

I've got it Librarian! That's it! We'll call the position "Librarian" - educate them on what's appropriate and not, and then trust them to make appropriate decisions!

Of course, they'll make mistakes, so as parent's we'll have the right to challenge all of their decisions - bring it up to the School Board regularly... make their lives a living hell, and reduce the library to those 4 books again!

'Merika!

@raphjd said in HOAX - Australian MP's trans-daughter victim of hate crime:

Andy Meddick MP's trans-daughter was attacked in a hate crime, or so we were originally told.

Turns out she attacked the guy when he confronted her for spray painting graffiti. At some point the guy threw one of her spray cans at her, hitting her in the head.

CCTV and eye-witnesses proved she was the aggressor.

Of course, when she originally reported the "unprovoked attack", she failed to mention that she was spray painting graffiti and that was why she was confronted by the man. She also failed to mention that she was the aggressor in the attack.

WHAT? A criminal claiming they did nothing wrong?

That's such a unique thing for a trans person to do!

I mean, a straight petty criminal would have just shot the dude, right? And claimed self defense?

And a regular gay person would have just fessed right up - turned themselves into the police and admitted everything!

DOH!

So, what part of this sad story of a petty criminal claiming an attack (and/or self-defense) - when they were both committing a crime AND the original aggressor - made the fact that they were trans relevant?

Oh yes, your general fear and loathing of all trans people in general... my bad! I thought there was nothing special - nothing worthy of going past the "neighborhood" section of the daily paper - there...

Who'da thunk trailing a juror home could cause such a stir?
Who'd be so incredibly stupid as to try such a stunt?

Dumb-fuck freelance reporter fro MSNBC, that's who!
If they weren't "protected" as "media", I'd give that reporter a 6-month interview with Rittenhouse - from inside the jail! Only the reporter couldn't file until they get out too!

As for loco @lololulu19 and his brilliant idea that they should have claimed self-defense... why, he should become an attorney! He'd be on the Supreme Court within 450 years! Such a brilliant legal mind!

Oh, wait! That's already a core component of the defense "strategy"...

"Never mind...."
- Roseanne Roseannadanna

Before everyone gets their panties in a twist:

This is FLORIDA!

Home of "Florida Man" and "Florida Woman"

You know, the idiots that headline almost every "strange news" conglomeration on the Internet!

I live in this loony bin of a State, so I can say with certainty, that this loony idea from this loony School Board member won't go anywhere.

All I can say is this: Come to our beaches and spend money. Come to our amusement parks and spend money. Come to our strip clubs (sorry, they're nearly all - if not factually all - female) and spend money!... Just please ignore the loonies that otherwise live here!

@raphjd said in Facebook bans the truth, yet again:

@bi4smooth

Proves you are the Russian troll, since you know more about their practices than I do.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

@dorftimbre said in copyright infringement:

@bi4smooth i just got 1o DMCAs in 2 days . Damn

Damn - that's a lot! I would guess mostly OF content?

In my experience, after a few months, this kind of DMCA "firestorm" dies down... it has in the past...

@raphjd said in Facebook bans the truth, yet again:

@bi4smooth

Such a dumb ass. A business isn't a person.

And, you don't believe humans have rights. You believe, like your masters, that the unvaccinated should be welded into their homes.

Businesses aren't people (well, in some ways they are - but we'll leave the US Supreme Court to work that one out - THEY opened THAT can of worms!), but they aren't the Government either!

Typical of your Trumpist/Russian ways - you can only see black and white...

I'm sorry your butt aches every time Facebook deletes one of your posts, or Starbucks refuses to make your coffee with deer shit (the way they do it in Mother Russia)... but grow some balls and deal with it! Stop complaining about perfectly legal actions taken by companies.

@raphjd said in BLM threatens riots if Mayor-elect Adams reinstitutes NYPD anti-crime units:

@bi4smooth

Well, as a Biden lover, you are a Russian troll, CCP agent, and a DNC member.

Let's not forget that your beloved liberal media spent years lying about Russian collusion by Trump, the Covington kids, Kyle, and countless other things.

So I don't trust anything you say.

You go boy! RANT HEAVEN

I let my record speak for itself on all of those counts...

FWIW: I am not the one re-posting bogus news accounts from Russian misinformation / troll farms!

Give Putin's balls a nudge, will ya?

@raphjd said in Facebook bans the truth, yet again:

@bi4smooth

You are the communist since you don't believe that people have rights.

people have all kinds of rights - mostly equal rights to all of them...

YOU don't get special rights... not because you're white, not because you're male, not because you're queer, not because you're in the UK, not because... well, not because of anything - you are NOT special (unless we're talking special needs here)...

@raphjd said in BLM threatens riots if Mayor-elect Adams reinstitutes NYPD anti-crime units:

@bi4smooth

You have a well-documented habit of posting from liberal sites.

It's funny that I post a link to the actual video, but you don't like it, claiming that it is out of context but I can't find a video where he "predicts" rather than threatens.

Outside right-wing extremist media, this isn't a story... at all! It's not there because it's not newsworthy to them.

My comment that it was a prediction, not a threat, came from PRINTED material, not video... because when the right-wing media twisted his comments, he posted the transcript of the entire statement, not just the snippet that's being played on the media.

Just because your Russian friends/handlers think it's newsworthy, doesn't mean the rest of the (non-Trump) world agrees!

@raphjd said in Facebook bans the truth, yet again:

@bi4smooth

You are in total lockstep with the CCP/DNC when it comes to hating the rights of people, except to riot and loot.

You are a communist! You want the State to enforce your vision of fairness.

Facebook has just as many rights as you - no more, no less. You want to post your stuff, post it! Just not on Facebook!

I don't know what their issue with that story would be - but that's not the point! The issue isn't whether the censorship of that post is MORALLY right or wrong, it's whether it is LEGAL... which it is, and you just get your panties in a wad every time they "decide" against you...

And to that end, I have no problems... you can be a whiny little bitch all day every day... (holding my tongue... physically LOL)

But when you take the NEXT STEP, and propose that they should be FORCED to allow your content - BY LAW.... well, that's communism (the State making decisions about who can do what, where, and when - in the name of the "common good"), and I want no part of it!

@flozen said in Why is everything new being deleted from the "Fan Sites" category?:

I feel as if half of the posters (guess) are late for their Ivermectin boosters.

Conspiracy?

Are the takedowns the conspiracy? Or are the wild-ass guesses about the takedowns the conspiracy?

Only the Shadow knows!

@raphjd said in Facebook bans the truth, yet again:

@bi4smooth

Ok, Feng Feng, whatever you say.

According to the FB auto-ban on the article, it says the moderation staff found it to be a "privacy concern" and "abusive".

I do love how, as a self-proclaimed "libertarian" you don't believe that humans have rights, but businesses do. Whatever, you do you or do the CCP/DNC.

You are butt hurt and screechy about Kyle, but you try to hide Bicep Bitch's crimes. Why is that? It reminds me of how you desperately tried to downplay the summer of love.

You continue to have a problem with the difference:

• Facebook has the right (legal) to delete anything they want - it's their platform
• Facebook is not right (moral) when they choose to delete content for political or other non-safety issues.

In other words: they are wrong to do it (moral), but it is their right (legal) to do wrong (moral) things on their own services!

You have NO right (legal) to use their platform! It is a privilege that they give to you (and they clearly give to a wide swath of people!), and they have the right (legal) to rescind that privilege at a whim!

Look: @raphjd is the Administrator here - on GT.ru. He's the OLNY person I've ever seen with that label, so let's assume he's the ONLY Administrator.

As such, @raphjd has the RIGHT (legal) to censor me, or even ban my account! But exercising that right (legal) - and I am thankful that he does NOT choose to exercise that right (legal) - would be wrong (moral).

Facebook (or Meta) is a little bigger than GT.ru (just a little, tho!) - and so there are LOTS of "administrators" at Meta... EACH OF WHOM have the shared right (legal) to censor (or censure!) content on their site! That doesn't mean it is right (moral) for them to do so - and I've repeatedly said I do NOT agree with their inconsistent and overly partisan application of their own wishy-washy rules.

If understanding the difference between a legal right and a moral one makes me a "liberal elite", then I accept that... just the same as being a supporter of "Law and Order" apparently does too...

If your definition of Conservative is dumb and blindly following Donald Trump, then count me out. But I'm keeping my Republican Party membership (voter registration)...

@raphjd said in BLM threatens riots if Mayor-elect Adams reinstitutes NYPD anti-crime units:

@bi4smooth

I've seen the video posted by a lot of different people.

Why haven't I seen it on your beloved liberal media?

This will come as a shocker!, I'm sure:

• I am not an editor for any media outlet - I'm just a lowly system architect (computer consultant) for a US federal contractor...
• I do not love any media - I don't even have any favorites - I think they're mostly all corrupt and profit-driven (vs. the news media of old who were information and public-service driven)

As such, I cannot answer for them... unlike some, I try NOT to put words into other people's mouths - at least not without making it clear!