General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[Jeffro.]

A vote of no does not support scammers. It only indicates that they do not support that particular proposition. There are any number or reasons why people may have voted no. No one on this board, NO ONE supports scammers. You're out of line

[Mr Sneeze]

A vote of no does not support scammers. It only indicates that they do not support that particular proposition. There are any number or reasons why people may have voted no. No one on this board, NO ONE supports scammers. You're out of line

+1 Well said.

[THE_BEYONDER]

[Speedy-D]

A vote of no does not support scammers. It only indicates that they do not support that particular proposition. There are any number or reasons why people may have voted no. No one on this board, NO ONE supports scammers. You're out of line

You obviously want the terrorists to win. smh

[Jeffro.]

A vote of no does not support scammers. It only indicates that they do not support that particular proposition. There are any number or reasons why people may have voted no. No one on this board, NO ONE supports scammers. You're out of line

You obviously want the terrorists to win. smh

 

They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin

[Park]

A vote of no does not support scammers. It only indicates that they do not support that particular proposition. There are any number or reasons why people may have voted no. No one on this board, NO ONE supports scammers. You're out of line

 

 

How can you be so sure that he does not know exactly why everyone voted?

[Ryan.]

A vote of no does not support scammers. It only indicates that they do not support that particular proposition. There are any number or reasons why people may have voted no. No one on this board, NO ONE supports scammers. You're out of line

You obviously want the terrorists to win. smh

 

They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin

 

 

I was actually thinking of that very quote last night whilst reading Dan's thread.

[A.Romeo]

A vote of no does not support scammers. It only indicates that they do not support that particular proposition. There are any number or reasons why people may have voted no. No one on this board, NO ONE supports scammers. You're out of line

+1 Well said.

 

A bank keeps getting robbed every few weeks, but let's not vote to make the bank more secure, makes sense to me...

[Speedy-D]

A vote of no does not support scammers. It only indicates that they do not support that particular proposition. There are any number or reasons why people may have voted no. No one on this board, NO ONE supports scammers. You're out of line

You obviously want the terrorists to win. smh

 

They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin

 

 

I was actually thinking of that very quote last night whilst reading Dan's thread.

I was trying to keep an open mind...did I sound all belligerent?

[mikenyc]

I was not surprised to see that almost 40% of the votes in that poll support potential scammers smh...

 

Can I ask on what basis you assume that a "no" vote equals support for scammers? You're just kidding, right?

 

Not kidding

 

Who wouldn't want to try to make the boards a better/safer place for sales by implementing some tighter rules with all the NOOB sellers/buyers around here in the past few months who can't take the time to read the rules of the forums, or try to scam someone out of money. Maybe giving a grace period to these new people will allow for the proper time to learn some board etiquette before buying/selling?

 

Also, adding a waiting period for new sellers who are trying to scam may eventually drive them away from here because they don't want to wait weeks to be able to sell since they are looking for the quick $$$ from those people who are caught off guard. It also forces them to interact on the boards by having a post count and gives the rest of the community a chance to get a feel of who the boardie is before deciding to buy from them when they have 1 post.

 

I'm a huge fan of scammers and voted yes. Guess your theory is right down the crapper.

[Speedy-D]

A vote of no does not support scammers. It only indicates that they do not support that particular proposition. There are any number or reasons why people may have voted no. No one on this board, NO ONE supports scammers. You're out of line

+1 Well said.

 

A bank keeps getting robbed every few weeks, but let's not vote to make the bank more secure, makes sense to me...

Dude the point is, they might not have liked my suggestion. It doesn't mean they wouldn't like any suggestion, just not mine in particular. For instance, some folks would have gone for 2 months/100 posts, but thought 2 months/200 posts was too much. :shrug:

[Mr Sneeze]

A vote of no does not support scammers. It only indicates that they do not support that particular proposition. There are any number or reasons why people may have voted no. No one on this board, NO ONE supports scammers. You're out of line

+1 Well said.

 

A bank keeps getting robbed every few weeks, but let's not vote to make the bank more secure, makes sense to me...

 

Go back and read Ghost Town's (Barton's) replies and tell me how that could be taken as support for scammers.

[Iceman399]

A vote of no does not support scammers. It only indicates that they do not support that particular proposition. There are any number or reasons why people may have voted no. No one on this board, NO ONE supports scammers. You're out of line

+1 Well said.

 

A bank keeps getting robbed every few weeks, but let's not vote to make the bank more secure, makes sense to me...

 

and there have been shootings at schools lets give every child, teacher and assistant one to ensure safety wow only a sith deals in absolutes.

[Ryan.]

A vote of no does not support scammers. It only indicates that they do not support that particular proposition. There are any number or reasons why people may have voted no. No one on this board, NO ONE supports scammers. You're out of line

You obviously want the terrorists to win. smh

 

They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin

 

 

I was actually thinking of that very quote last night whilst reading Dan's thread.

I was trying to keep an open mind...did I sound all belligerent?

 

Not at all. It was an idea worth exploring, though I'm generally of the opinion that the marketplace is fine just the way it is.

[A.Romeo]

A vote of no does not support scammers. It only indicates that they do not support that particular proposition. There are any number or reasons why people may have voted no. No one on this board, NO ONE supports scammers. You're out of line

+1 Well said.

 

A bank keeps getting robbed every few weeks, but let's not vote to make the bank more secure, makes sense to me...

 

and there have been shootings at schools lets give every child, teacher and assistant one to ensure safety wow only a sith deals in absolutes.

 

well now your just talking cray cray

[comix4fun]

A vote of no does not support scammers. It only indicates that they do not support that particular proposition. There are any number or reasons why people may have voted no. No one on this board, NO ONE supports scammers. You're out of line

+1 Well said.

 

A bank keeps getting robbed every few weeks, but let's not vote to make the bank more secure, makes sense to me...

 

and there have been shootings at schools lets give every child, teacher and assistant one to ensure safety wow only a sith deals in absolutes.

 

well now your just talking cray cray

 

 

Word on the street is his real name is A.Capulet.

[jaybuck43]

I'm with Ryan on this (and voted no). Yes there are scammers and scammers suck. But I don't think changing things (and penalizing new users who aren't scammers) is the way to go about it. Granted I would hope we could have a civilized discussion about it.

[skypinkblu]

I was not surprised to see that almost 40% of the votes in that poll support potential scammers smh...

 

Can I ask on what basis you assume that a "no" vote equals support for scammers? You're just kidding, right?

 

Not kidding

 

Who wouldn't want to try to make the boards a better/safer place for sales by implementing some tighter rules with all the NOOB sellers/buyers around here in the past few months who can't take the time to read the rules of the forums, or try to scam someone out of money. Maybe giving a grace period to these new people will allow for the proper time to learn some board etiquette before buying/selling?

 

Also, adding a waiting period for new sellers who are trying to scam may eventually drive them away from here because they don't want to wait weeks to be able to sell since they are looking for the quick $$$ from those people who are caught off guard. It also forces them to interact on the boards by having a post count and gives the rest of the community a chance to get a feel of who the boardie is before deciding to buy from them when they have 1 post.

 

So having a different opinion means I support scammers?

 

How about looking at it this way.

 

Someone who BUYS from someone with 1 post might be supporting a scammer.

 

Someone who posts with one post might be an honest seller.

 

Someone who buys with one post without spending time to check out the boards might be a gambler.

 

You can change the "one" to "200" if it helps you.

 

Someone who reacts to how others vote with such a strong reaction might be over-reacting a tiny bit?

 

I'll stand by my first suggestion last night. We should not allow anyone to post until they have been here for 2 years. Makes as much sense as some of this other stuff, and it's MUCH more likely to protect new people from their own enthusiasm.

 

(yes, I'm joking about the 2 years, but think about the consequences;)

 

[jaybuck43]

You just want the 2 year rule to get rid of me, is that it Sha ?

[Bosco685]

A vote of no does not support scammers. It only indicates that they do not support that particular proposition. There are any number or reasons why people may have voted no. No one on this board, NO ONE supports scammers. You're out of line

You obviously want the terrorists to win. smh

 

 

"VOTED NO? OH, HE MUST BE A DEVIL WORSHIPPER!"