Jesse Jackson is a Clown and Needs to Stop Already

[sirkickyass]

Kicky said this would be “easy” to do, but it has in fact taken me the better part of an hour to do so.

Seriously? Don't take this the wrong way aint, but how the hell did that take the better part of an hour?

I went looking for it because I thought this was utterly unbelievable. I used an imprecise method of measuring how long it took me (I looked at what my clock said when I started and then looked at my clock again when I found it, so I'm not precise to the second or anything) and the answer was "about four minutes." And that was with the cat crawling all over me and periodically standing in front of my screen.

I didn't use any special tools or search methods either. I simply went to the general discussion forum, paged through until I found the thread, opened it, and then scrolled through the thread until I saw your avatar several times in a row. It was the least sophisticated search method possible.

Is your internet connection at 2400 baud? Did you have to restart your computer a whole bunch of times? What the hell else were you doing during your search? If some of this is caused by bad/old hardware and software that might be a contributing cause to your problems with the first post in threads as well.

 

[Hopper]

... how the hell did that take the better part of an hour? I went looking for it because I thought this was utterly unbelievable.

So, Kicky, you're sayin that as soon as you saw my avatar "several times in a row," you immediately KNEW exactly which "23" posts were bein referred to? Figures that you would think you knew that, assuming you did think so. Truth is, I still can't find any 23-post sequence which contains 16 by me.

And you're sayin you only went "looking" for "it" only AFTER reading what I said about exactly where to look? Well, aint that special, eh? Here I mighta thought that you woulda "looked" at the allegedly intolerable sequence BEFORE you voted on it. Stupid me, eh?

 

[sirkickyass]

So, Kicky, you're sayin that as soon as you saw "5 posts in a row," you immediately KNEW exactly which "23" posts were bein referred to? Figures that you would think you knew that, assuming you did think so. Truth is, I still can't find any 23-post sequence which contains 16 by me.

It is times like this that I miss the eyeroll emoticon.

Here I mighta thought that you woulda "looked" at the allegedly intolerable sequence BEFORE you voted on it. Stupid me, eh?

Before (when it was originally reported) I had a direct link. I didn't have to "go looking" for it. I merely did a "dumb search" to see how long it would take to investigate the better part of an hour claim. Absent ancient technology and connection speeds, I still have no idea how it took you that long given that you knew which thread to look in. I could read the entire thread in less than an hour. How did you go about looking for it that it took so long? Did you try googling for "Hopper" and "16 of 23"? That wouldn't work. Did you check wikipedia for clues? Did you call a psychic? I'm serious when I say that I'm completely floored that this process took you longer than 10 minutes tops.

 

[Hopper]

Before (when it was originally reported) I had a direct link.

Oh, ya did, eh? Is there some *special* reason why I wasn't given a "direct link" instead of some totally indecipherable reference to non-existent pages, only to thereafter (1) have my requests for clarification go unresponded to while (2) being told, along with every poster on this board who cared to read (and believe) you, that I had been "fully warned" on a "repeated" basis? Go figure, eh?

I'm serious when I say that I'm completely floored that this process took you longer than 10 minutes tops.

I'm "floored" that you actually think that what you "say" carries any kinda credibility, eh?

 

[testers]

Test

 

[sirkickyass]

Oh, ya did, eh? Is there some *special* reason why I wasn't given a "direct link" instead of some totally indecipherable reference to non-existent pages, only to thereafter (1) have my requests for clarification go unresponded to while (2) being told, along with every poster on this board who cared to read (and believe) you, that I had been "fully warned" on a "repeated" basis? Go figure, eh?

You should have been given a direct link because one accompanies every infraction or warning with a link to the post that was flagged for the warning and infraction. I gave your complaint a valid though and considered that it was possible that no link was automatically provided given that I myself have never been warned with the new board system. I created the testers account that you see in a post directly above mine then "warned" that post to see the message that was sent to the message box.

This is what I got:

You have received a warning at JazzFanz Community
Dear testers,

You have received a warning at JazzFanz Community.

Reason:
-------
Other

Test to see if a link is provided
-------

Original Post:
https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?p=32053

Test
Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.

All the best,
JazzFanz Community

As you can see, a link is automatically provided. So yes, I believe you got a link. If by some weird quirk that I'm not seeing you were not provided with a link, you were provided with the name of the thread and the uniqueness of you having only one stretch of posts that consist of five in a row and six in a row should have made this findable in a few minutes. Therefore, I accord your "lack of notice" claim zero weight.

I'm "floored" that you actually think that what you "say" carries any kinda credibility, eh?

My fragile self-esteem has now collapsed.

 

[Hopper]

As you can see, a link is automatically provided. So yes, I believe you got a link.

Let me get this straight, eh, Kicky? On the basis of that long-*** post you're claiming to BELIEVE I got a link? As you have repeatedly stressed, you have access to the ACTUAL warning I got. Why didn't you look at it, before forming a 'belief" on the matter? Wouldn't that have been both (1) easier than some elaborate fake "test," and (2) much more reliable?

Because, ya know, there IS NO link in my warning, eh? Maybe you really weren't looking for anything reliable and definitive, but rather just for any means to create a deceptive appearance. That's what your prior behavior leads me to think, unfortunately.

 

[sirkickyass]

Let me get this straight, eh, Kicky? On the basis of that long-*** post you're claiming to BELIEVE I got a link? As you have repeatedly stressed, you have access to the ACTUAL warning I got. Why didn't you look at it, before forming a 'belief" on the matter? Because, ya know, there IS NO link in my warning, eh?

I can't look at your PMs. What I can look at is the text of the warning you receive that is inputted by mods into the message box. That's what I've quoted to you previously. Without having access to your actual PM box or to the PM sent box of the moderator who sent you the warning I can't look at the auto-generated text that contains the links. That's why, out of an overwhelming desire to be fair to you, I went through the exercise described above: to confirm my beliefs about the automatically generated text.

I'm sure that you will take this to mean that I was somehow lying when I said I could look at your warning, as is your wont. To my knowledge, no one has ever complained to us about not receiving the automatically generated text. Feel free to forward to my PM box your warning message and I'll take a look.

In any event, I think it is clear that given the quoted text of the warning that you could have easily found the string even if you were subject to a unique technical glitch with a modicum of searching and a minimum of effort. You dispute this (obviously) but we are where we are. Clearly you consider yourself a martyr of some sort.

EDIT: After consulting a users' guide for the software, apparently if the warning is given out from the user's profile page as a "profile warning" it doesn't automatically provide a link. That's probably what happened in your case as I can't find any other plausible explanation. In any event, you were told the thread and given a description of the string which should have been sufficient notice applying a "reasonable person" standard. Frankly, that's better notice than appears in a lot of court summons. I think we can consider the matter closed.

 

[Hopper]

Without having access to your actual PM box or to the PM sent box of the moderator who sent you the warning I can't look at the auto-generated text that contains the links....Feel free to forward to my PM box your warning message and I'll take a look.

I could delete any link that was there, so don't take my word for it. Ask Catratcho for his copy.

In any event, I think it is clear that given the quoted text of the warning that you could have easily found the string...

In other words, you continue to "believe" whatever it is that you WANT to believe, regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary. What else is new? I've already told you: There is NO SUCH STRING in that thread that I can find. Perhaps I miscalculated, or overlooked something, that's a possibility. But, until you know there is such a "string" why do you continue to insist that it is "clear" that I could "easily find it?"

I think I know why, but I'll let you tell me, if you care to.

 

[Hopper]

In light of your recent editing, are you now willing to retract this bogus claim, Kicky:?

Before (when it was originally reported) I had a direct link. I didn't have to "go looking" for it.

 

[sirkickyass]

I could delete any link that was there, so don't take my word for it. Ask Catratcho for his copy.

I would have assumed that you wouldn't tamper with evidence. I don't generally make it a habit to assume that people will attempt to mislead me at every turn.

I've already (I believe) solved the mystery in any case, see the EDIT in the post above.

I've already told you: There is NO SUCH STRING in that thread that I can find.

The referenced string of five starts here: https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20270&viewfull=1#post20270

The referenced string of six starts here: https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20253&viewfull=1#post20253

The full referenced string of "16 out of 23" starts here: https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20199&viewfull=1#post20199

If anything it appears we gave you too much credit. It looks closer to 16 of 20 on this pass.

If you looked at the thread, I have no idea how you missed this.

 

[sirkickyass]

In light of your recent editing, are you now willing to retract this bogus claim, Kicky:?

It's not a bogus claim. The link is attached to the original report we received. This is generated independently of your warning.

This is what I saw (with the reporter's name redacted). As you can see, I was not lying when I said I was given a link.

Redacted has reported a post.

Reason: 10 of the last 12 posts are from Hopper. Even with him on ignore, it makes these threads hard to read. Nobody ever seems to get back to me on these reports -- are they just getting deleted?

Post: The Morman hypothetical
Forum: General Discussion
Assigned Moderators: calijazz, Sirkickyass, catratcho, moevillini, Bronco70, Revolution 9

Posted by: Hopper
Original Content:If your contention is that one simple belief, standin all by itself, is insufficient to be called a religion, I see your point, but that aint really the issue here. Theism, in isolation, is not a "religion" either, but it's got the makins of one.

You can click the topic title and it takes you to the reported post. No retraction necessary.