[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
sheds

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts]
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 13515)
Message
File  []
close
SAUSAGE.jpg
135151351513515
>> ID: 7389f1 No. 13515 Anonymous
10th December 2015
Thursday 8:44 pm

ID: 7389f1
13515 Silly Sausage Thread
Ban appeals, supplication and fry-ups.
153 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown. Expand all images.
>> ID: 688830 No. 13904 Anonymous
27th July 2016
Wednesday 6:35 pm

ID: 688830
13904 spacer
>>13899
I'm the person who reported you and I'm afraid you are not correct, the noun you are looking for is willingness. Thanks for playing!

For what it's worth, I personally think bans for grammar and spelling are overzealous, but fuck it, if I'm going to get banned for such a stupid thing then I might as well report everyone else out of spite.
>> ID: 48387e No. 13905 Anonymous
27th July 2016
Wednesday 8:16 pm

ID: 48387e
13905 spacer
>>13904
There's only one thing for it. Send >>13899 back to his router!
>> ID: 165961 No. 13906 Anonymous
27th July 2016
Wednesday 8:56 pm

ID: 165961
13906 spacer

wellend.png
139061390613906
>>13904
"willing" as a noun has been known for almost two centuries, if not more.
>> ID: fff1a8 No. 13907 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 9:33 am

ID: fff1a8
13907 spacer
>>13904

Please ban this cunt for:

A) reporting me and getting me banned when my post was grammatically correct.
b) Still insisting that it wasn't correct, when willing has been used for a long, long time, as evidenced by >>13906 .

What an annoying little cunt you are though. Have you really never heard of people showing willing? If there's one thing worse than a wrong cunt, it's a cunt whose wrong but supercilious due to the fact that they still think they're right.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> ID: 688830 No. 13909 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 11:20 am

ID: 688830
13909 spacer
>>13907
>Have you really never heard of people showing willing?
Nope. Saying it must be correct because it's old can be used to justify all kinds of errors. We don't tolerate incorrect '-ize' spellings here, for instance.

And by the way:
>a cunt whose wrong
>> ID: 165961 No. 13910 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 11:27 am

ID: 165961
13910 spacer
>>13909
>Nope.
Not him, but I'm definitely going to take the word of some random bloke on the internet who hasn't heard of something over a printed dictionary. That definitely makes sense. Also, I've never heard of "whom" so that too must be wrong.
>> ID: 818452 No. 13911 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 12:16 pm

ID: 818452
13911 spacer
Pack it in, ladies.
>> ID: 171a1b No. 13912 Anonymous ## Mod ##
28th July 2016
Thursday 12:26 pm

ID: 171a1b
13912 spacer

Dear oh dear oh dear..png
139121391213912
>>13907

>If there's one thing worse than a wrong cunt, it's a cunt whose wrong but supercilious due to the fact that they still think they're right.

I agree.
>> ID: 688830 No. 13913 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 12:35 pm

ID: 688830
13913 spacer
>>13911
But we were encouraged to "fight amongst ourselves"!

>>13910
The word lol is in a printed dictionary. The word 'literally' with the meaning of 'figuratively' is in a printed dictionary. The use of both would be banned here. Printed dictionaries are clearly not infallible scripture.

And anyway, that was the question he asked me and I answered it. You shouldn't be having a go at me if you don't consider the question relevant.
>> ID: 688830 No. 13914 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 12:36 pm

ID: 688830
13914 spacer
While I'm in the ban thread, I was just banned for an hour for posting a 'blacklisted link', which was gmu dot edu. I was posting a link in the thread by the Kyrgyzstani lad to the Speech Accent Archive which is hosted on that domain because I thought it might help him. So why is this blacklisted?
>> ID: 171a1b No. 13916 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 12:44 pm

ID: 171a1b
13916 spacer
>>13914

Brian (You know, the site) has a blacklist of links which have either been spammed in the past or are known to be high risk.

I'll remove it, it was an automatic ban no trouble. I suggest you find an alternative way of communicating that info, though.
>> ID: beb05d No. 13917 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 12:45 pm

ID: beb05d
13917 spacer
>>13914
BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT ANY KYRGYZ BASTARDS COMING OVER HERE.
>> ID: 171a1b No. 13918 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 12:55 pm

ID: 171a1b
13918 spacer
>>13913

>But we were encouraged to "fight amongst ourselves"!

Square go, no circles. Queensbury rules. FIGHT!
>> ID: 165961 No. 13919 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 1:03 pm

ID: 165961
13919 spacer
>>13913
You seem to be going to a lot of effort to defend a false report for grammar.
>> ID: 8f2cb7 No. 13920 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 5:50 pm

ID: 8f2cb7
13920 spacer
>>13909
>Have you really never heard of people showing willing?
> Nope.

Not him, but if you've never heard of someone "showing willing" then you're either lying, foreign, or are a bit of a thicko.
>> ID: 508711 No. 13921 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 10:59 pm

ID: 508711
13921 spacer
>>13920
>, or

What is the official board position on the use of the Oxford comma?
>> ID: 165961 No. 13922 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 11:14 pm

ID: 165961
13922 spacer
>>13921
One would assume that if it's good enough for Oxford then it's good enough for here.
>> ID: 508711 No. 13923 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 11:46 pm

ID: 508711
13923 spacer
>>13922

But not good enough for Cambridge, the University of Oxford Public Affairs Directorate Writing and Style Guide, The Times or The Economist.

Besides Oxford's a complete dump.
>> ID: 1b1696 No. 13924 Anonymous
29th July 2016
Friday 12:08 am

ID: 1b1696
13924 spacer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW7bB8D_mAY
>> ID: 5b36c0 No. 13925 Anonymous
29th July 2016
Friday 12:08 am

ID: 5b36c0
13925 spacer
>>13923

We should solve this like gentlemen - with a mass brawl in a Wetherspoons car park.
>> ID: 165961 No. 13926 Anonymous
29th July 2016
Friday 12:13 am

ID: 165961
13926 spacer
>>13923
>But not good enough for Cambridge, the University of Oxford Public Affairs Directorate Writing and Style Guide, The Times or The Economist.
When they've published a near-complete record of the English language then maybe they can have an opinion.
>> ID: dc6c1f No. 13927 Anonymous
29th July 2016
Friday 2:06 pm

ID: dc6c1f
13927 spacer
I posted a perfectly grammatically correct post and somebody reported it because they thought 'show willing' should be 'show willingness' for some reason.

The mod didn't pick up on this and banned me for using the wrong pick from 'they're/their' even though that was correct. I raised that in this thread and he said he wasn't paying attention when in reality he just made a mistake but was too up his own arse to admit it.

Some lad then said that he reported me over the 'show willing' comment and the mod, backtracking, has started to pretend that was the reason and that regardless of a common phrase, that has also been a fixture of the English language for hundreds of years and is not in anyway archaic, that only his special interpretation of the English language is allowed and the dictionary is full of shit.


TL;DR - Mod banned somebody over grammar despite it being correct and is having a teary about it and pretending he's the grammar expert, not the people who literally write the dictionary and is probably not as smart as he likes to think he is.

Feel free to throw another teary and ban me again, I'm not gonna come back (in before the 'haha don't come back then lol!' comments).
>> ID: 818452 No. 13929 Anonymous
29th July 2016
Friday 2:32 pm

ID: 818452
13929 spacer

Capture.png
139291392913929
>>13927
What are you on about? I unbanned you when you pointed out the ban was mistaken. It looks like you were given a very short ban for other reasons in the meantime, but that has expired or been removed. The only current bans are for the nepalese, spambots and something else.
>> ID: 171a1b No. 13930 Anonymous
29th July 2016
Friday 3:10 pm

ID: 171a1b
13930 spacer
>>13929

Yeah, I banned him for being a shitehawk/using excessive verbiage and then having the bare-faced cheek to use whose instead of who's, which is simply not cricket.

It was not for very long. If you scroll up you'll see it, as I posted a screenshot of it for posterity and ritual humiliation.
>> ID: d80efc No. 13931 Anonymous
29th July 2016
Friday 5:39 pm

ID: d80efc
13931 spacer
>>13929

What is up with that >>/nom/12025 ban reason? it reads like conspiracy theory word salad.
>> ID: 64b30b No. 13932 Anonymous
29th July 2016
Friday 5:42 pm

ID: 64b30b
13932 spacer
>>13931
>word salad
Seems appropriate for /nom/.
>> ID: 818452 No. 13933 Anonymous
29th July 2016
Friday 6:08 pm

ID: 818452
13933 spacer

Capture.png
139331393313933
>>13931
The post in question.
>> ID: c234c3 No. 13934 Anonymous
29th July 2016
Friday 6:53 pm

ID: c234c3
13934 spacer
>>13933

I knew their was a reason for me going balded!
>> ID: 02bce9 No. 13935 Anonymous
29th July 2016
Friday 7:00 pm

ID: 02bce9
13935 spacer
>>13931
>it reads like conspiracy theory word salad.

If you want to take a gander at how shampoo is corrupting your brain have a read of >>/poof/3281.
>> ID: 4c0409 No. 13938 Anonymous
18th August 2016
Thursday 5:56 pm

ID: 4c0409
13938 spacer
Isn't a week-long ban for getting around a word filter a bit much?
>> ID: 818452 No. 13939 Anonymous
18th August 2016
Thursday 8:24 pm

ID: 818452
13939 spacer
>>13938
Maybe, but apparently you can get around it so it doesn't matter all that much. You should have known better.
>> ID: 165961 No. 13940 Anonymous
18th August 2016
Thursday 8:32 pm

ID: 165961
13940 spacer
>>13939
Not him, but IIRC "all boards" doesn't include /shed/ precisely so that offenders have somewhere to grovel.
>> ID: 818452 No. 13941 Anonymous
18th August 2016
Thursday 8:38 pm

ID: 818452
13941 spacer
>>13940
You recall incorrectly.
>> ID: 165961 No. 13942 Anonymous
18th August 2016
Thursday 9:17 pm

ID: 165961
13942 spacer
>>13941
That would rather raise the question of the point of a ban appeals thread in which the banned cannot post.
>> ID: 3568f1 No. 13943 Anonymous
18th August 2016
Thursday 9:35 pm

ID: 3568f1
13943 spacer
>>13942
Most people post from their phones, so you have the option of switching from mobile Internet to WiFi, or simply turning the WiFi off for a few minutes and turning it on again. No idea if you can do that with mobile internet, but I don't think the mods would want to blanket ban that for ban evasion because of the whole EE debacle.

Also, bans should start from the time the post is made rather than when the mods get around to actioning it.
>> ID: fe1614 No. 13944 Anonymous
18th August 2016
Thursday 9:36 pm

ID: fe1614
13944 spacer
>>13942

Now you're catching on.
>> ID: 818452 No. 13945 Anonymous
18th August 2016
Thursday 10:12 pm

ID: 818452
13945 spacer
>>13942
It was discussed as a planned feature but never implemented for the same reason as all the other good ideas never were.
It is possible to ban someone from all boards except /shed/ by ticking the box for each individual board instead of the "all boards" box but that's a pain in the arse and you have to remember not to tick the ones for the secret boards; purple told me off for failing to do that.

>>13943
>Also, bans should start from the time the post is made rather than when the mods get around to actioning it.
They do. If you're banned for a day for a post an hour after it was made, it means the ban was an hour and a day.
Seriously, what?
>> ID: f26d6b No. 13947 Anonymous
18th August 2016
Thursday 10:39 pm

ID: f26d6b
13947 spacer
>>13945
>a planned feature but never implemented for the same reason as all the other good ideas never were
A bit like this, ho ho? >>/b/404502
>> ID: 818452 No. 13948 Anonymous
18th August 2016
Thursday 11:00 pm

ID: 818452
13948 spacer
>>13947
... yes? I guess. What?
>> ID: eaabd4 No. 13949 Anonymous
19th August 2016
Friday 12:57 am

ID: eaabd4
13949 spacer
>>13943
.gs is on my phone network's 'blacklist' for whatever reason and I don't fancy being put on May's special list of wrong 'uns just to shitpost on here.
>> ID: b69d17 No. 13950 Anonymous
19th August 2016
Friday 2:43 am

ID: b69d17
13950 spacer
>>13949
When I had a PAYG phone with Orange it was hit or miss whether this site could be accessed, due to a sporadic block on content deemed unsuitable for under 18s, but I nerve had an issues once I went on a monthly contract with them.
>> ID: badd56 No. 13951 Anonymous
19th August 2016
Friday 4:36 pm

ID: badd56
13951 spacer
>>13950
Virgin media never flagged .gs as an adult site so I used to browse /x/ on my phone when out and about. Not because I wanted to look at porn, but because it felt like thumbing my nose at the filter.
>> ID: 2082fa No. 14167 Anonymous
30th April 2017
Sunday 5:52 pm

ID: 2082fa
14167 spacer
Afternoon, mods.

Any chance you can lift my ban on /emo/ for posting >>/emo/24841, please? I didn't think I'd get in trouble for referencing one of our previous posters.
>> ID: ec74d0 No. 14168 Anonymous
30th April 2017
Sunday 7:40 pm

ID: ec74d0
14168 spacer
>>14167
You were banned for shitposting in /emo/.
>> ID: 2082fa No. 14169 Anonymous
30th April 2017
Sunday 7:58 pm

ID: 2082fa
14169 spacer
>>14168
I'm all for keeping /emo/ free of cunt-offs and cuntery, but I'd have thought that, when the discussion drifts towards mobile phones and rape, that's the opportune time to reference the lad from here who went on trial for rubbing his iPhone against his infant daughters fanny and couldn't see what he'd done wrong.
>> ID: ec74d0 No. 14171 Anonymous
30th April 2017
Sunday 8:52 pm

ID: ec74d0
14171 spacer
>>14169
Perhaps you should have reported the posts drifting towards mobile phones and rape instead of joining in. Regardless, ban lifted.
>> ID: d80efc No. 14172 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 5:04 pm

ID: d80efc
14172 spacer
>>14171

Same deal, I was a silly shitposting sausage may I have my Emo priviliages back? post >>/emo/24859
>> ID: ec74d0 No. 14173 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 5:26 pm

ID: ec74d0
14173 spacer
>>14172
Yes but only if you promise to learn to spell privileges.
>> ID: db1008 No. 14174 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 5:32 pm

ID: db1008
14174 spacer
>>14172
Privily Argh-Jess.
>> ID: 80b2bd No. 14175 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 12:14 am

ID: 80b2bd
14175 spacer
Since everyone's begging, can I have access to /emo/ too? I really need to help the stupid balding woman.

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password