- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:4000 KB, Thumbnails: 400x400 pixels
- Currently 1133 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
166 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 13919
You seem to be going to a lot of effort to defend a false report for grammar.
|>>|| No. 13920
>Have you really never heard of people showing willing?
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.
|>>|| No. 13921
What is the official board position on the use of the Oxford comma?
|>>|| No. 13922
One would assume that if it's good enough for Oxford then it's good enough for here.
|>>|| No. 13923
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.
|>>|| No. 13925
We should solve this like gentlemen - with a mass brawl in a Wetherspoons car park.
|>>|| No. 13926
>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.
|>>|| No. 13927
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).
|>>|| No. 13929
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.
|>>|| No. 13930
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.
|>>|| No. 13935
>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.
|>>|| No. 13938
Isn't a week-long ban for getting around a word filter a bit much?
|>>|| No. 13939
Maybe, but apparently you can get around it so it doesn't matter all that much. You should have known better.
|>>|| No. 13940
Not him, but IIRC "all boards" doesn't include /shed/ precisely so that offenders have somewhere to grovel.
|>>|| No. 13942
That would rather raise the question of the point of a ban appeals thread in which the banned cannot post.
|>>|| No. 13943
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.
|>>|| No. 13945
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.
>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.
|>>|| No. 13947
>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
|>>|| No. 13949
.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.
|>>|| No. 13950
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.
|>>|| No. 13951
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.
|>>|| No. 14167
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.
|>>|| No. 14169
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.
|>>|| No. 14171
Perhaps you should have reported the posts drifting towards mobile phones and rape instead of joining in. Regardless, ban lifted.
|>>|| No. 14175
Since everyone's begging, can I have access to /emo/ too? I really need to help the stupid balding woman.
|>>|| No. 14358
Modlad, why did I get banned for a post from 13th of September? I don't even remember making that post, but in any case, isn't it a bit heavy-handed to give me a 2 week ban for basically nothing? Do you hate Christmas?
|>>|| No. 14359
You seem to be getting around it just fine. Which makes it tricky to tell which ban was you, should someone deign to remove it.
|>>|| No. 14360
I'm surprised foreign IPs are not ban. I thought we had a great wall and all.
Anyway Scrooge, why is it difficult to tell which one I am? Have you gone a banning spree again? Where's your Christmas spirit?
>You have been banned from posting on all boards for the following reason:
>Naw lad >>/b/412762
>Your ban was placed on December 1, 2017, 3:28 pm, and will expire on December 15, 2017, 3:28 pm.
|>>|| No. 14362
Paedos are attracted to any talk of legitimising their criminal disorder whether it's a joke or not, we've had a couple of persistant ones in the past. Like nonce moths to a child.
|>>|| No. 14363
Not either of them, but I'm curious as to what you think handing out two-week bans for obviously-jokey posts almost three months after the fact is supposed to achieve. I'm all for shutting down anything that's going to attract the crabs as and when it happens, but this seemed a bit like trying to lock the stable door after the farm has long since fallen into the sea.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]