Author Topic: What is appropriate content for DonationCoder? (Read 135677 times)

CodeTRUCKER · « **Reply #150 on:** January 05, 2008, 04:26 PM »

[OFF TOPIC]
Darwin, given you are a "Biological anthropologist interested in human variability at the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition" how do you read tinjaw's anthropology, especially as one who has mutated a metallic lower mandible? Also, from the structure of the occipital cap and the coronal suture is there a clue as to the time of the metallic mutation? One thing for sure, the subject did see his dentist twice a year!
[/OFF-TOPIC]

CodeTRUCKER · « **Reply #151 on:** January 05, 2008, 04:29 PM »

I am looking for the same thing. How do I stop new replies to certain topics from showing up in the "Unread topics" section of dc?
-Josh (January 05, 2008, 04:21 PM)

tinjaw, that makes three of us! I've wondered the same thing?

Darwin · « **Reply #152 on:** January 05, 2008, 04:30 PM »

[OFF TOPIC]
Darwin, given you are a "Biological anthropologist interested in human variability at the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition" how do you read tinjaw's anthropology, especially as one who has mutated a metallic lower mandible? Also, from the structure of the occipital cap and the coronal suture is there a clue as to the time of the metallic mutation? One thing for sure, the subject did see his dentist twice a year!
[/OFF-TOPIC]
-CodeTRUCKER (January 05, 2008, 04:26 PM)

Results are inconclusive, but I'd say that the mutation likely occurred AFTER 1988

mouser · « **Reply #153 on:** January 05, 2008, 04:39 PM »

I am looking for the same thing. How do I stop new replies to certain topics from showing up in the "Unread topics" section of dc?

can't be done yet, but i agree it would be a nice thing.

app103 · « **Reply #154 on:** January 05, 2008, 04:40 PM »

[OFF TOPIC]
Darwin, given you are a "Biological anthropologist interested in human variability at the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition" how do you read tinjaw's anthropology, especially as one who has mutated a metallic lower mandible? Also, from the structure of the occipital cap and the coronal suture is there a clue as to the time of the metallic mutation? One thing for sure, the subject did see his dentist twice a year!
[/OFF-TOPIC]
-CodeTRUCKER (January 05, 2008, 04:26 PM)

Results are inconclusive, but I'd say that the mutation likely occurred AFTER 1988
-Darwin (January 05, 2008, 04:30 PM)

I would have to disagree with you there and place the date somewhat earlier, like 1977

CodeTRUCKER · « **Reply #155 on:** January 05, 2008, 04:41 PM »

[OFF TOPIC]
Darwin, given you are a "Biological anthropologist interested in human variability at the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition" how do you read tinjaw's anthropology, especially as one who has mutated a metallic lower mandible? Also, from the structure of the occipital cap and the coronal suture is there a clue as to the time of the metallic mutation? One thing for sure, the subject did see his dentist twice a year!
[/OFF-TOPIC]
-CodeTRUCKER (January 05, 2008, 04:26 PM)

Results are inconclusive, but I'd say that the mutation likely occurred AFTER 1988
-Darwin (January 05, 2008, 04:30 PM)

Darwin · « **Reply #156 on:** January 05, 2008, 04:49 PM »

App, I stand corrected. Apparently, a pre-adaptation for tinjaw's condition existed at least 11 years earlier! Who knew?! It's not an exact science...

Nice one, by the way

tinjaw · « **Reply #157 on:** January 05, 2008, 04:55 PM »

I think we need to get mouser to install a plugin. Let's split off a new thread.

----

Doh! Here I was replying to the last post on page 6 and I didn't realize there was already a page 7! I'm falling behind.

----

And let's just say that Silicon dating will get you more information than Carbon dating will concerning my origin. (Especially since Carbon only runs on Macs)

And before anybody else feels the need to chime in... Yes, I know! It is all set out it black and white in "The Origin of Feces".

Darwin · « **Reply #158 on:** January 05, 2008, 04:59 PM »

Thanks for doing that, tinjaw

Note that mouser has already commented about this in this thread.

tinjaw · « **Reply #159 on:** January 05, 2008, 05:02 PM »

And I am clearly from the PreDarwinian Era since I am only 2D and he is 3D.

Darwin · « **Reply #160 on:** January 05, 2008, 05:04 PM »

Nope. I'm user number 377 - you're 38,009, so you're clearly a post-Darwinian...

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #161 on:** January 05, 2008, 05:38 PM »

Damn - that means I am post-Darwinian too (but only just at user number 477).

Maybe I am post-Darwinian with vestigial pre-Darwinian traces

tinjaw · « **Reply #162 on:** January 05, 2008, 06:07 PM »

Actually the "Porn drives technology online" argument doesn't hold water for me
-Carol Haynes (January 05, 2008, 05:00 AM)

You obviously are in the minority. (only a very very little bit NSFW for a word or two, should be acceptable to most)

What is appropriate content for DonationCoder?

Almost 4 million views!

There is even a "Disney" version.

Deozaan · « **Reply #163 on:** January 05, 2008, 06:35 PM »

Common Typos for Programmers:

...then we, as a community, will have accomplished to make a perl from the grain of sand that is this thread.
-tinjaw (January 05, 2008, 05:59 AM)

Actually the "Porn drives technology online" argument doesn't hold water for me
-Carol Haynes (January 05, 2008, 05:00 AM)

You obviously are in the minority.
-tinjaw (January 05, 2008, 06:07 PM)

No I think she's right. Internet technology isn't driven by porn. It's driven by the pursuit of money; the majority of which is perhaps gained from pornography.

tinjaw · « **Reply #164 on:** January 05, 2008, 06:45 PM »

Common Typos for Programmers:
-Deozaan (January 05, 2008, 06:35 PM)

LOL that is hilarious. I would have never noticed that in a million years.

CodeTRUCKER · « **Reply #165 on:** January 05, 2008, 06:58 PM »

Thanks for doing that, tinjaw Note that mouser has already commented about this in this thread.
-Darwin (January 05, 2008, 04:59 PM)

@Darwin - Thanks alot!

Iwas reading this thread again and when I got to your post, you put me in a recursive loop and I just now got out.

Next time be kind and use a For-Next, will ya!

CWuestefeld · « **Reply #166 on:** January 05, 2008, 09:40 PM »

I'm sorry. I know (as a recent thread revealed) that flames are pretty rare here, but I'm getting sick and tired of this self righteousness

. Other participants pointed out how your logic was faulty, and that despite paying lip services to the opinions of others, this is really condescension, and you firmly believe that your view is really the standard against which others must be judged. I didn't pursue it, but since Mouser has pretty much committed to a solutions to your problem, would you please cut it out now?

Carol has expressed my revulsion of a horrible epedemic quite succinctly and has also debunked the "it drives technology" sham as well, so I won't belabor those points.
-CodeTRUCKER (January 05, 2008, 01:48 PM)

No she didn't, she only stated her personal feelings, but I shan't pursue that because it's tangential to the topic. But your reference to a "horrible epedemic [sic]" again refers to your prejudices. Please, out of respect for those having different philosophies than your own, keep these offensive ideas to yourself.

1 - I didn't have a choice, the article landed in my RSS otherwise I would have never have seen it.
-CodeTRUCKER (January 05, 2008, 01:48 PM)

You still seem to be seeking to utterly wipe out the options of anyone disagreeing with you. Based on the possibility that you might be offended, your message implies, we must curtail anything that is offensive to your values.

This sounds very innocuous on the surface, but it only serves those that participate in them. It is like someone lighting up a very pungent incense. Only one did it because he had a right to, but everyone there will be forced to "relish the bouquet" or split.
-CodeTRUCKER (January 05, 2008, 01:48 PM)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can only read this and your constant return to such statements as a belief that the entire DC forum is corrupted by the presence of anything beneath your morality, and thus, even if you don't participate or even view it, it must be excised lest the pestilential attitudes that it breeds spread like a cancer through the entire community.

If this is view that drives any changes to the community then you can accept my resignation.

What if I was to do reviews on all the software and technology associated with Jesus Christ (and there is a plethora)? Would my posts find open arms as just another "technology" or would it be deemed heresy because it involves religion and the Judeo-Christian religion in particular? I think the answer is obvious and is so much so that I have refrained from presenting it in order to prevent creating a firestorm ... While I have every right to present all of these reviews, bible software tech blogs, etc. here at DC as technology and software, I have chosen to not do so as it would upset the sweetness that is the heart of DC.
-CodeTRUCKER (January 05, 2008, 01:48 PM)

Poppycock. Start a series of threads discussing religious-themed software. I'll likely ignore most of it, but it may lead to a more vibrant community as a whole... unless it brings in more intolerant self-righteous folks.

Just cause we are better than some doesn't mean we can't be better than we are, does it? Let me hasten to add that I am not the one to determine what is better as this is a community and the community will ultimately define what would be better and tremendous thanks goes to Mouser for allowing that to happen. My point is let's stop patting ourselves on the back. There is always room for improvement.
-CodeTRUCKER (January 05, 2008, 01:48 PM)

Again, you pay lip service to tolerance. But this whole paragraph would be redundant if you actually believed it. I'm convinced that you really do believe that your personal values are the correct ones, and that you're only condescending, indulging us until we see the light.

tinjaw · « **Reply #167 on:** January 05, 2008, 10:33 PM »

INCOMING !!!!

f0dder · « **Reply #168 on:** January 05, 2008, 10:37 PM »

CodeTRUCKER · « **Reply #169 on:** January 05, 2008, 10:44 PM »

@CWuestefeld - I read your post.

tinjaw · « **Reply #170 on:** January 05, 2008, 10:54 PM »

Somebody please PM me when it is safe to come out.

Darwin · « **Reply #171 on:** January 06, 2008, 12:08 AM »

Next time be kind and use a For-Next, will ya!

OK, I'm dim - what's a For-Next?

Grorgy · « **Reply #172 on:** January 06, 2008, 12:48 AM »

This community, in my brief time here, has been open and friendly, and I have never been offended by any post in these pages. Some I don't bother with, not interested, but offended? never. The only hint of real offensiveness in my opinion is this thread, that is somehow trying to say that because I do not agree with one persons views I am therefore a lesser person and should change my beliefs and desires to fit their world view. Well stuff that. The world is made up of many individuals and we all have different views on just about everything, we may find some like minded people in some areas whose views on other topics are opposite to our own. If we can't live with difference then we are still in the dark ages.

Having read a bit of CWuestefeld blog pages, i don't think there is a lot we have in common, but his comments above I generally agree with.

CodeTRUCKER · « **Reply #173 on:** January 06, 2008, 03:57 AM »

Next time be kind and use a For-Next, will ya!

OK, I'm dim - what's a For-Next?
-Darwin (January 06, 2008, 12:08 AM)

Darwin, I'm not sure my humor came off right. Man, it is bad when one has to explain what one thought was humorous

What I was trying to pull off was if you read your post I referenced there is a link that takes you up a few posts to Mouser's post. Ok I go back and read Mouser's post and then read down to your post with the link back to Mouser's post then read back down to your post which takes me back to Mousers, etc. Get it?(nudge-nudge) it becomes an indefinite or recursive loop which theoretically will never let you out. So I was quipping that your post put me in that recursive loop. I was feigning fuming at you (but maybe it was the wrong smiley

).

A For-Next is a loop, generally in the form...

For i = 1 to 10 i++
<Do something>
Next i

This is not a recursive or indefinite loop because the value of i istarts at "1" and can only increment to 10 and the i++ means recurse <Do something> 10 times in a row and then drop out of the loop.

The idea was kind of poking fun saying "Hey, next time you put me in a loop make it a loop that I can get out of, i.e., a non-recursive loop like a For-Next. Sort of a kind of old vaudeville gag like Abbot and Costello type routines.

The whole thing was just to make you smile. Sorry for the question marks.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #174 on:** January 06, 2008, 06:11 AM »

You could try a:

Repeat
something
Until FALSE

approach

Actually no one answered (or even commented) on the question I posed earlier "where do the limits lie?"

I don't particularly have a problem with the YouPorn thread myself as nothing offensive was included in the thread and the following discussion was just the usually DC friendly banter and silliness. However, I didn't choose to click the link or make a comment and it did make my eyebrow raise and wonder if it was an appropriate topic when it was originally posted.

What is the limit though ... what if a site YouPaedo appears? Could some post a similar thread? In many countries accessing such a site would be illegal and may result in a prison sentence (certainly in big brother UK) but exactly the same 'technology' arguments for inclusion apply.

I was somewhat surprised by some of the self righteous pontificating going on here (and I am not necessarily talking about codeTRUCKER's posts). Stating that codeTRUCKER has no right to state or argue his position or that by stating it he is trying to force his morals and beliefs on others is just as intolerant (if not more so because you are TRYING to supress his freedom). Surely the argument being made by some of the protagonists is that you don't have to read or comment on stuff you don't like - doesn't the same apply to you in this thread? Or does the unpleasantness of personal attack illustrate that we all end up reading threads at times (and continuing them) that we really don't like or agree with?

After receiving a PM from codeTRUCKER I invited him to start this thread because I believe it is a question that at least needs to be asked. OK we will never reach a full concensus for a number of reasons, including:

everyone has (and are entitled) to their own viewpoint
some people see anything opposed to full on 'anything goes' as evil
some people like picking fights for the sake of it
some people are too selfish to consider other peoples feelings

there are probably many other categories too but these are just a few that spring to mind (mainly because I recognise all those traits in myself at times).

My personal opinion is that there are acceptable limits on freedom of speech. The difference is that I think those limits should be self imposed limits that take into account the need to avoid deliberately offending others who have a contrary view. Being able to consider others is, for me, a fundamental of any definition of what it means to be civilised.