Well, this is exemplary!

Thank you for the update, zikzik.  It is actually one of the best posts that I have read on this forum in awhile.


If only everyone were so introspective.  :-/

As you understand, there are people who deal with scammers every day.  They are accustomed to being told lies and excuses.  A betting man knows the odds of your story being true.

On the flipside, I understand that playing the odds can lose.  That is why I would never bet on guilt, or presume guilt in one of these cases; and it is why, although I went a bit hard on you in places, I always sincerely emphasized that if you are innocent, I hope that you get your money back!

If an innocent party only looks suspicious due to happenstance, the result can be much frustration on both sides.  Judiciousness is uncommon to human nature.  People tend to lose perspective to their own biases, and thereupon jump to conclusions:  On one side, “This guy is guilty and lying!”  On the other side, “This site is a scam!”

Most notable is your above self-reflection on emotional reactions, and your understanding of the other party’s position.  It is honourable of you.  And meritorious.  Cheers.

Since you asked about “merit” before, I will note:  Because I do not have “merit source” privileges, I must earn 2x as much merit as I can send to others.  I am a bit low right now on sendable merit (sMerit), and trying to conserve it.  I will therefore send you +2 now, your first forum merit—and maybe a bit more after the case is fully concluded with funds in your wallet.  I rarely send more than +1 at a time.

Now that you have at least 1 merit, when the server slowly updates its rankings, you will see your forum rank change from “Newbie” to “Jr. Member” due to ≥30 activity.  It is not important; merit and ranks are excessively important only to people either who have no lives, or who are only here to grub for money with paid signatures and other bounties.  The merit system was introduced in an attempt to reduce forum spam from idiots who only post to show paid advertisements in their signatures, where paid advertising is allowed.  As you will note, I do not have any paid advertisement in my signature beneath this post.  —I just want to let you know how things work here.


I look forward to your update when you have received your funds.

Without knowing the details (and I do not assume you know, either), I wonder if this also means that the other related case will be resolved similarly.

You should know that I have been watching this thread carefully—as, no doubt, have many others.  For my part, if I didn’t always reply to you, it is only because I didn’t want to spam the thread with unnecessarily repetitious posts.  Here’s to a happy conclusion!

The image that I posted here which was deleted, “The Origin of the World”, is featured and depicted uncensored with other nudes in this news article (grand finale, last entry in the article), together with others of Courbet’s nudes:
https://www.artnews.com/feature/gustave-courbet-controversies-origin-of-the-world-1202694408/
It is a quite liberal publication, which would probably fire me for some of my politically incorrect comments; but albeit in the art niche, it is still a legit mainstream news site.  “NSFW”? 
Would you get fired for visiting artnews.com at work?  ²

---

Because hoi polloi love screenshots, here is one of the one above all such scat:



suchmoon is now trying to tone it down and feign fairness, out of embarrassment for her public potty-mouthed temper tantrum.  She is sufficiently shrewd to know that removing “nullius is a cunt” from the title would be open capitulation; but her thinly-veiled backpedalling is nonetheless obvious:


Regardless (and I do mean: regardless), the thread is what is is.  And it is fitting that in such a thread, amongst very few intelligent comments, some of the only intelligent comments have been made by CH, of all people.

Above:  Fair context—because I do not misquote, even for comedic effect.



CH, since you are being such a gentleman in this thread, I politely request that you do not feed the suchlunatic troll’s scatological fixations.  If she wants to sniff my farts, I am NOT interested in that.  Yuck!

And please, if you and your mighty-Lambo-that-pulls-a-horse-trailer ever get suchmoon out for drinks, etc., etc., then do not post NSFW pics of your type of BBW fart-sniffer turd-felch lovemaking.  I am no prude, but große Scheiße!  I do not want to see that! 🤮


I don’t need your permission; but nonetheless, thank you for inviting me to call myself a dick.  Who fucks.

Because suchmoon’s profile alleges that her location is “SoCal”, I have rendered this sign in Caltrans’ official shade of safety orange:



Historical footnote:  This graphic was first displayed on another thread, before suchmoon’s latest posts and change of OP here.  My post there was deleted by the moderators, although it was on-topic, and it did not violate any forum rules.  Together with the graphic, I had planned the above-seen retitling before suchmoon recently updated OP.

—Thus, I am hereby communicating at the mental and cultural level of the audience for this thread, similarly as I told peloso:

---

You are confused.  (—Either that, or as much a dishonest twister as suchmoon.  I will assume good faith.)

Unfortunately, you have expressed no gratitude for the newbie help that I have provided to you before.  Why should I take the time to explain to you the difference between running a self-moderated thread on a forum where anybody can make a new thread, versus improperly abusing the forum rules to suppress posts that you dislike?


Don’t tempt me.  My violin needs new strings.

—To be clear, I would never make a kitty into violin strings!  So-called “catgut” strings are usually made from the intestines of sheep.

Need pictures for illiterates who call long, thoughtful, thorough posts a “spam wall”:

🐑

Re: Why KYC is extremely dangerous – and useless
(OP thereby is 2748 words, not including external links and translations list at the end.)
Translation: “wordy-man wall of text, u use alot of words, its 2 much, pls say it in 140 chars or u loose ur raedrs, kthxbye”  —  Proper response from a stereotypically polite German:  „Danke, ich werde darüber nachdenken. 🗑️“

---

---

CH, and also The Pharmacist:  I have further replies for you.  However, I will hold them for now; I do not want to make this post too long!

According to a democratic poll, people’s opinion is that 3 + 4 = 7±ε, and that 7 is a composite number.  I tried some Twitchy stringmaths, and discovered that '3' + '4' === '34'.  And you are approximating the Internet’s “Rule 34”.

By DT evidentiary standards for quickly identifying alt accounts, it is PROOF that CompositeNumber7 is a porn producer! 

If he denies this admittedly trumped-up charge, then Stormy Daniels will testify.  However, HE DID NOT DENY IT!


Again, it is CompositeNumber7!  The value of a movie about swinging.  How much more PROOF do you need that CN7 runs the whole SoCal porn industry!?

Given that I have recently got meself in trouble for posting non-porn, I expect that CN7 will soon be BANED.  :-(

---

Bottoms first:

I noticed.


I was partly showing some evidence that I had indeed downloaded the image, as you have now confirmed.  I see too many liars and two-faced twisters on this forum.  Just in case you may have been suspicious that I was only pretending to ask to see it, I wanted a succinct way to demonstrate that, at least, I have in my possession the data without which I could not have produced a hash which, to my knowledge, has not previously been published.

Cryptography solves many problems!


I don’t doubt that you usually enjoy being caught between a rock and hard place—and that you don’t, here.  I appreciate that your evident willingness to discuss this topic fairly, and to express consistently the same principles as you have elsewhere.

For reasons that you have succinctly described from your own viewpoint, I really do not understand the “NSFW” rule.  Rules are supposed to be understandable to the ordinary intelligent person.  I believe that I meet or exceed that description; and yet, I seem unable to use my usual mind-reading powers to guess what a moderator will declare “Not Safe For Work”, vague as the term is.

Before further attempts to define that term, I will step back and examine the potential cultural origins of this dispute.


You are unfair to “Western society”.  It is a Christian issue, and most of all an issue of the persistent influences of certain denominations of Christianity—not a Western cultural issue.

When Popes have bought nude statues of mythic Greek heroes (who worshipped non-Christian gods and goddesses), they were not getting that from the Bible!  They were Renaissance men—culturally European, and sometimes not very good at being Christian.

Of course, what you want is not to be a Renaissance man.  I am not really one, either; but modulo a few of my own freethinking adjustments, it is an ideal for which I strive, so as to rise beyond my own modern corruptions, weaknesses, and failings.  Properly considered, I am not an “Antihero”, but rather, a Byronic hero (and a Don Juan).  —A hero in the original sense, but with tragic flaws inasmuch as I am assuredly not an Achilles.  Anyway...  I despise “virtue”:  I seek virtù.

You probably disagree with me about many things; for example, I infer that you would hate this post of mine and its followup.  (← ⚠ WARNING:  Links contain artistic nudity—i.e., a nude statue of Napoleon’s sister as Venus Victrix—and are likely offensive to Foxpup!)  And some of the forum’s right-wingers, who oft concur with me politically, are probably upset by my Nietzschean attacks on Christianity;—
—and you see—yes, you see, I took the nym “nullius”, which means ‘nobody’, for I please nobody.

Of note in this connexion, you awarded high merit to one of my posts that included, inter alia, a nude statue of Phryne in the Achilleion.  The Achilleion is a palace that was originally constructed by Kaiserin Elisabeth of Austria, who was strictly Catholic royalty; the palace was later purchased by Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, an extremely conservative traditional Prussian.  Both Imperial monarchs were Christians—but like Popes who have admired nude Perseus, they were also strongly influenced by Western culture far older than Christianity, as reborn in the Renaissance.

(I will admit that they both probably would have had a problem with Courbet—but politics are here inextricable from the question, insofar as Courbet was a damnable Socialist.  I doubt that they would have appreciated Foxpup’s oeuvre—but Foxpup, you did say you aimed for “distasteful”! ;-)

Phryne was, of course, a great woman who provided aristocrats with intimate companionship in exchange for (very large amounts of) money.  —So great that she has inspired painters, sculptors, and poets for millennia.  And her legendary image, as imagined by artists, has appeared in not a few of my forum posts.

Foxpup, remember this?  I think you didn’t know that it is from the former palace of ultraconservative German monarchs.  (—Later taken away and converted to a posh casino where at least one James Bond movie scene was filmed, after the Germans lost it due to war politics.  I am pretty sure that the fence was not there before, when it was not open to the public.)

^^^ This is Western culture.  Only a subset of Puritanical Americans, and a few mutant Englishmen, could ever have a problem with it.  Their problem is that they are mentally ill, and unfit for survival in this world.

On that note, I do understand that this is a very American forum; and its policies are thus subject to the cultural influences of a country that was partly founded by

Perhaps my expectations may be too high here.

---

This post is getting too long even for me.  —To be continued, with further discussion of “NSFW” as I attempt to understand what it means here.  Because I really don’t.

That is a point in Trump’s favour!  As I said in a polite, fully on-topic post which complied with all explicitly stated local rules—which nutildah deleted from his Trump memes thread:

Apologies to PrimeNumber7 for the semi off-topic post.  I will not complain if you delete this post as having only off-topic memes; however, in my defence, I argue that this is also about Biden:  If you dereference my rhetorical pointer, the point is that Biden is so unpopular that people don’t want to meme about him—people only meme love or hate for Trump!

Dishonest debate tactics severely annoy me.  Stop switching back and forth between “NSFW images” and “think of the children!!!!”  —Or do you suggest that only images can ever be allegedly^* unsuitable for children?  —By the way, do you let your kids listen to Cardi B?

---

* Although I have not checked, I seriously doubt that the Musée d’Orsay has an 18+ policy.  The very suggestion is one of those eye-rolling-emoticon things.  Their website, which displays the same image as I posted, is not age-gated; and if porn filters were to block it, the censorware companies would immediately be hit by professors, museum curators, et al. with a firestorm of the same protest that I am raising in this thread.  Oh, and your boss would look dumb as a brick if he fired you for looking at a museum’s website at work:  https://www.musee-orsay.fr/en/collections/index-of-works/notice.html?nnumid=069330

---

Thanks.  Neat trick.


Now, this is why I wanted to see it:

• The image does not depict nudity, not even cartoon nudity.  I had assumed that it did.  Beneath the black bars, I could not see that the genital area and nipples are (barely) covered.
• The image is what I myself consider to be distasteful.  I already knew that; but I could not say by how much, without seeing the uncensored image.  Now, I can say that I have seen worse elsewhere on this forum.  Furthermore, I can state that I often see other things freely posted which I would consider to be much more harmful to children.  See below for an example.
  
  Not that I want to ask for those to be deleted—to the contrary, it is an argument in my mind of:  “If this is permitted, why is that forbidden?”  The rules do not make sense to me; and I do not think that I am on notice of how I can follow them.

---

^^^ Thus began my reply to Foxpup, which I set aside because it takes time and tedium to locate suitable examples, etc.

To be continued, with whatever adjustments may be needed as the thread evolves.

---

Mutual.  And you are severely mischaracterizing TMAN here.  It is a shame that that undermines your credibility, because you raise a good and fair point about LoyceV:


You forgot that LoyceV also runs didtmansayabadword.tk, which I found sufficiently amusing that I suggested that it should count whenever TMAN said the word “fork”.  (← ⚠ ACHTUNG!  The screenshot of Jihan’s infamous tweet is NOT SAFE FOR WORK!)






Does “not raising them to be snowflakes” include teaching them to use language that would make a sailor faint?  Admit it, you shitcuntarsedicktwat, you reported my posts because you disliked my masterful counterstroke against suchmoon’s middle-schooler grade potty-mouth trolling of me.  As I alluded above in this thread, one of my deleted posts seriously-sarcastically documented suchmoon’s prior history of pride in not wearing a paid signature—hah, hah, only serious!^*  Loyce, I think that that probably offended you more than the Courbet painting.

...and then, you rhetorically hid behind your wife and kids.  Classy.

---

* For the record—a I have said before, repeatedly—I am quite ambivalent about paid signatures.  I strongly dislike them myself.  I have spent the past few years reserving the right to take a paid signature from a reputable, no-spam campaign, if I really need it to avoid starving.  I have not done so, because I cannot stomach putting an American-style ad billboard on all of my posts.  Ugly!  Crass!  Whereas Lauda thought that I was stupid for spending so much of my time here, with zero compensation—effectually devaluing myself; and I don’t think that she did anything wrong by wearing a paid signature.  Anyway, none of that is the point here.  suchmoon used to be so very proud of not wearing a paid signature, and now she has one; so...

https://loyce.club/archive/topics/529/5294284.html

Saved quotes are good, too.  (Thanks, OP.)  For those reconstructing quotes from Loyce’s archive, be aware that the timezone needs to be set; and the scrape time is off by a few seconds.

Note:  The thread is unlocked, and moved back to Reputation.

“That car will be a house in a few years.”  It is exactly what I would say to DOGE bitches and shitcoin maximalists.  

---

Financial advice:  Short Bitcoin at high leverage.  That car will be a house!

---

This altcoin trader did not invest in the long-term security of a car.

---

When I squint hard, I think that the sign says something about altcoins.  At least, we can pretend that it does and someone with real Gimpy skills could make it so.

At this point, I consider Coinbase to be primarily a surveillance company that also offers a few exchange services as a sideline, rather than vice versa.

—Someone else, please write a wall of wordy-man text explaining in gruesome detail all of the bad things about Coinbase...  I will just say here for now, let us also not forget, Coinbase were anti-Bitcoin 2Xers.  And I think that they have not changed a bit.


One of my Newbie posts, from when I had been actively posting for seventeen days:

^^^ segwit.party 404 image replaced with my saved copy.  I am reluctant to edit the post from 2017.

I mean this:  “WE WILL NEVER FORGET”.  If you run a centralized service and try to leverage your huge market share against Bitcoin, then you are untrustworthy, and I will always assume unless otherwise proved that you are still trying to subvert Bitcoin.

---

I am now about twenty hundred trillion pages behind WO.  My apologies if I missed something that you wanted me to see, or if you replied to one of my posts here.

I knew that there was a reason why I made the effort to vectorize it!  Now, I can whip these out by the score.

I was shooting for, “Er ist ein Künstler der Fotzen.”  But despite the cross-lingual clumsiness, the “von” makes for a sweet pun.

---

Thus you see, CH:  If suchmoon trolls you, then it is possible to dish it back without behaving like a GNAA member on Slashdot.  (“Nerdius”, you say?)

As such, I can kick back and watch suchmoon melt down publicly whilst she projects her meltdown onto me.  It is hilarious.  (Pro tip, suchmoon:  When you are so hurt about being excluded from participation in valuable self-moderated threads that you start a Reputation topic titled, “nullius is a cunt”, then nullius is not the one having the meltdown.)

Alas, I am still a bit too busy at the moment.  I do want to catch up here properly.  But if I take the time to write another long essay hereby, it should be after I catch up on the other stuff that suchmoon has been sucking my clock—I mean, my time away from, with her middle-schooler gutter-mouth antics about cunts.

---

Quote from: sirazimuth on November 29, 2020, 03:28:16 AM

Oh yay!
I got a shout out from the roastee. I feel honored.

See you around.  Since I have been too distracted with my defence of the fine arts to keep up with WO, I must get my market fix somehow.  ;-)

“Honey badger don’t give a fork” is not only a Bitcoinism:  It is a winning approach to many problems.

This is moved from where it is off-topic in one of my self-moderated threads.  For fairness, 1miau’s post will be fully quoted without alteration in Post #2 hereby.  (Forum feature suggestion:  Give self-mod topic starters the ability to move posts intact between threads.)

---

Again, with the n00b questions about “how does this work?”

The ~ means that I distrust your judgment.  No more, no less.  It is supposed to be neither a popularity contest, nor a personal insult.

Notwithstanding that you have exhibited high competence in some subjects that are irrelevant to the trust system, I sincerely distrust your judgment.  Although I am not required to explain my reasons to anybody, I will be kind to you, and illustrate with a real-life example how this is supposed to work:

• I saw significant evidence that you make reports to the moderator based on political disagreement with the author of a post.  This makes me distrust your judgment generally.  It is injudicious, to say the least; and if your judgment is so unsound with moderation reports, then mutatis mutandis, I distrust your tags.
  
  N.b. that although the posts were mine, I would apply the same criteria in any case—and I myself do not abuse the report-to-moderator function to suppress opinions (or authors of opinions) that I dislike.
  
  (Note:  I still intend to reply to you in that topic.  I still have reason to, insofar as you do not know what “spam” is; and I believe that it is your such misunderstanding that caused the whole débacle.  I tend to fall behind on posts that I intend to make, largely due to the time and effort invested in each.  It is an admitted problem of mine.  —Just as you saw me mention, I still intend to reply to mikeywith in that other Reputation thread...)
• Thereupon, I checked your trust page.  I noticed that you issue too much positive feedback for relatively trivial reasons.  I was recently discussing this exact problem with others here and in the Russian forum; and I have been intending to start a new thread about this, under which I plan to denote that you (and others) are excluded for this reason.  suchmoon’s lunacy has been distracting me from more important activities...
  
  Giving too much positive feedback too easily facilitates SCAMS.  Nobody complains about it—improper (or allegedly improper) negative feedback gets the attention, because people complain when they themselves receive negative feedback.  Whereas if you green-trust people incautiously, then it is only a matter of time and luck before the consequences befall people who trust your judgment.
  
  You issue positive feedback for economic activity valued as little as 0.0002 BTC (maybe even lower), apparently for first-time transactions.  When time permits, I intend to suss out JUST WHO THE HELL is bringing all such bad positive feedback into my trust network, and exclude them all.  ~~~~~~~~  It is not about you personally, One Meow.
  
  
  Quote from: nullius on November 16, 2020, 09:42:04 PM
  Quote from: nullius on February 24, 2018, 02:29:06 AM

  I am extremely conservative in matters of trust.  I do not trust easily; and most of all, I do not vouch lightly.  If you have been trustworthy to me and you do not receive positive feedback, please do not take that as a slight.  It simply means that I do not yet know you well enough to vouch for you to entire world.  Positive trust feedback from me is meaningful, because my standards are high.

  Quote from: nullius on March 08, 2018, 07:15:12 PM

  I am ultraconservative in matters of trust;

  Quote from: nullius on February 07, 2018, 07:39:20 PM

  ... “trust is hard to earn, easy to lose”. ...
  
  There are certain empirical facts about trust known by experience to anyone over the age of thirty.

  Quote from: nullius on January 28, 2020, 08:13:24 PM

  I am liberal with negatives, and conservative with positives; for I distrust easily, but I am careful in choosing whom I trust.
  
  I do not want to see your tags up top; and I do not want your positive ratings figuring into the trust scores that are displayed to me.  The ~ button exists for that purpose.  Understood?
• Your complaint about my exclusion of you, and the insulting manner of that complaint, confirm tenfold my distrust of your judgment.
  
  
  Quote from: 1miau on November 29, 2020, 01:09:58 AM
  Feels nice to join this group of morons?  
  
  
  You are injudicious and unwise, and you personalize things that are not intended to so be.  Forum usage protip:  When somebody trust-excludes you no personal attack, and no evidence of spitefulness or impropriety, then the proper response is this:
  
  
  Quote from: The Pharmacist on October 23, 2020, 05:49:28 PM
  Quote from: nullius on October 23, 2020, 05:47:09 PM

  That's how I see it anyway.  I can agree to disagree on an issue like this one.
  Quote from: nullius on October 24, 2020, 07:11:08 PM
  Quote from: The Pharmacist on October 24, 2020, 03:55:52 PM

  I excluded nullius from my trust list because [...]

  No hard feelings.

---

Usage instructions:  Each of those Loyce.club trust pages contains a convenient link which says, “BBCode for Bitcointalk”.  You should copy and paste the BBcode as text, in pertinent part, instead of posting a screenshot.  For example, see my reply when some trolls and idiots claimed that Lauda (“лayдa”) and I (“нyллиyc”) were in league with suchmoon (“cyшмyн”) (!):

---

Oh, do you speak of my switch from inclusion to exclusion of hilarious?  I sincerely do not trust his judgment, either.

I saw warning signs before, in his handling of the PrimeNumber7 case.  I kept him included, because I thought he had valuable tags that I wanted to see; and moreover, his own inclusion list is not so horribly big as to pull all sorts of garbage into my second-level.

(I avoid including many people whose judgment I otherwise trust, for this exact reason!  For example, this is why I have not considered including qwk, although qwk has many good tags (at least in 2017 and later), and is on the Cult of Lauda inclusion list.  I prefer to include people who have short inclusions lists, and long exclusions lists.)

However, as I have already said publicly, hilarious’ recent choices have proved to me that his judgment is not trustworthy.  Now I know from first-hand knowledge that he says untrue things about people; why would I trust his tags against others!?  It is, again, why theymos made the ~ function.

Anyway, hilarious is off-topic here.

---

Local rules.  Will be enforced.

An historical view—over not so short a term as the past few decades—coupled with, dare I infer, a search for first principles, and the application thereof to the big picture?

I like it.  But if you wish to reach the root of the problem, beware that “root” = L. radix.  That way lies thoughtcrime, unacceptable in modern democratic society.

Note to self:  Merit this later.

---

OP was aimed directly at a deliberate modification of a value system.  Via both positive reïnforcement and negative deterrence.


My little work-in-progress sketch in OP fit this description.  I did not foresee that it would incite such quality discussion amongst others!

Oh 🤬forking🤬 h—, have I now been also been fired by Sarcasm?  😭

(New users, my apologies.  I cannot link to the post that gives the context for this in-joke, because it was one of the posts that was deleted.)

---

I must ask, are you hereby speaking officially in your rôle as Global Moderator on behalf of the forum, or expressing only your personal opinion?


If I ran a business that was publicly represented in the manner in which you have now reacted to me here and in the other thread, then I would promptly fire the employee who had tarnished my business’ professional image—whether or not that employee was expressing my own policies by such means.

I have always addressed forum staff with due courtesy (except for that Bcash shill HostFat), including in my hereby discussion with you.  Your behaviour toward me is unwarranted.  Internet flamewars between myself and random parties are one thing—but it is quite another, when you are entrusted with the responsibility to execute forum policy judiciously; whereas you have chosen to reply from the gutter and hurl personally insulting innuendo at a party who has addressed you with polite (if impassioned) discussion of official forum policy.

(I will set aside your arguments for the moment.  I reasonably want to know whether they are official policy or your personal opinions, so as to know how properly to reply—and whether even to bother.)

---

At least the other person who told me so (in much gentler terms) was an honest person, and thus meant it sincerely.  (—And knew why I waste my time kicking around on the Internet, but that is none of your business.)

Do polls ever?

(This one did!  I am trying to guess which option you—oh, how foolish of me!  Poll options updated.)

---

That is conduct unbecoming of a global moderator, especially one who appears to be acting in that rôle as to the subject at hand.

It also shows very poor judgment to make grand pronouncements about the personal lives of total strangers on the Internet, on the basis of nothing but an apparent grudge as of which I was unaware.  Jumping to conclusions, from personal dislike:  Do you exercise the same judgment in your usages of the trust and moderation systems?

(Incidentally, in an unfinished draft of my reply to cryptohunter and sirazimuth in the “nullius is a c—” thread, I address the point that every intelligent person over the age of thirty knows that an Internet persona conveys only limited information...)


Your “bet” is only safe, because you know that I will not dox myself and spill personal details for the purpose of challenging you to a real bet, and then taking your money.

—On second thought, are you trying to bait me to expose myself for the grand prize of Winning An Internet Argument?  You are certainly trying to provoke me.

---

For the record (i.e., for any n00bs reading this), hilarious’ meme pic casts me in a false light:  I have never claimed to hail from the upper classes, or to be rich.  To the contrary, I am quite poor.  And whatever my complicated background may be, it is none of your business:  I rest on the merits of whatever knowledge and culture I may express.

Except when it equals the composite number 7.

The poll updated accordingly with Option 7, the answer that trumps all others.  In the future, however, Trump voters will form conspiracy theories about me and accuse me of “ballot fraud” after I I move 7 to Option 8.  Liberals are wiser:  They will know that my handling of the ballot is perfectly honest, because the Composite Number 7 (2²) equals 8 (2³) on the basis that 2 = 3.  Quod erat demonstrandum.

---

I had thought to run a poll on the Earth’s geometry, but I feared that it would fall flat.

I already opened my topic—as a question, for I am aghast at the proposition that my posts violated forum rules.  And I am not the only one; I have received private comments supporting me on the issue, from people whom I would not expect or ask to stick their necks out over it as I am.

hilarious’ answer was the only official one thus far, and was equivocal.

If it is confirmed unequivocally (directly, or via high-level staff) that the forum’s administration prohibits the deleted posts, then I will retitle the topic from a question to a declaration.  And yes, I will argue the case!  Harder than you think.  This is important to me.  theymos is a libertarian (which I am not), so he will probably understand in his own way why I don’t just shrug it off.


Let’s make a deal:  You stand up for your own opinion, without suggesting that I must comply with your wife’s sensibilities per a “Not Safe For Wife” rule ; and I will not mention her again in this context.  I did not like doing that.  It is terribly rude.  The politics of personal attacks on men’s wives (and otherwise family) is a despicable trend that started in the 1930s–50s.  Very modern.  I detest it.

Agreed? 

Who knew that you are married to a cartoon character.


Titled, “In which nullius does some research, and learns to communicate in pop-culture terms that everybody else here will understand.”

Your concern for your children may be more credible if you weren’t essentially stating that you ban them from museums, art history textbooks (things evidently unfamiliar to you), libraries (oh dear me, what may they find there!?), etc.  As it is, you come off as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children.

At that, if you expose your children to this forum, do you have a problem with them seeing people call others a “cunt”?  Or watching you promote gambling (which I don’t dislike in itself—but it is not appropriate for children)?  What about a forum post which claims that tripping on LSD is an experience like taking a trip to France?

I also wonder if you protect your children from listening to the radio.  I would.  There is trashy stuff broadcast over the airwaves that you should be much more concerned about than famous paintings.

---

Quote from: LoyceV on November 28, 2020, 08:44:30 AM

Quote from: nullius on November 28, 2020, 12:00:00 AM

But I admit, my feelings are hurt:  I am shocked, outraged, and indignant!

Great! All this helps you grow a thicker skin.

LoyceV cherrypicks quotes out of context to strip obvious sarcasm from a satirical statement, and cast me in a false light as a fool.  Noted.

---

Quote from: hilariousandco on November 28, 2020, 07:36:41 AM

I didn't remove it but ask yourself this: would that artwork or something like it belong in the workplace, or would you feel comfortable looking at a picture like that at work? I doubt it. Just because something is 'art' or in a museum doesn't mean it's SFW.

Thank you for your reply.  No, I would not mind being seen at work or otherwise publicly looking at a Courbet painting.  Neither would the employees at the museum where it is on public display.  Neither would anyone else who is not an ignorant rube.  Indeed, it is hilariously ridiculous to suggest that this forum has higher standards than this workplace:

Interior of the Musée d’Orsay
A workplace beyond the ken of LoyceV and his wife.

In professional and social contexts, what I would want to avoid is to be associated with the massive amount of mass-mind, low-class cheap trash that gets posted here, such as non-nude “sexy” pics of tarts who look like streetwalkers—and also, all the photos of marijuana and cocaine that oft get posted to the Wall Observer.

In my professional life, and socially for me, it has also always been unacceptable to call someone “a cunt”.

My standards are higher:  If you really want to enforce my “safe for work” standard, then you need to delete at least half of the graphical content of the forum.  At least.  Plus many of the textual posts.

—Let’s not go that way.  I will defend others’ posting of non-pornographic images, whether or not they are to my taste; and I find it regrettable that I even need to ask if forum policy prohibits the following image, which depicts male genitalia, and is hereby hotlinked directly from the Vatican Museums at a .va Internet address.  The whole of Vatican City is the Pope’s workplace, subject to Catholic law; thus, this is “SFW” for the Pope.  Anybody who reports or deletes this is mentally ill, an enemy of mankind, and a despicable cretin whom I despise worse than anybody whom I have ever despised on this forum, including Craig Wright.  Source page in English:  Perseus Triumphant.

Quote from: http://www.museivaticani.va/content/museivaticani/en/collezioni/musei/museo-pio-clementino/Cortile-Ottagono/perseo-trionfante.html

...the statue was bought by Pope Pius VII Chiaramonti (1800-1823)...

My intended context for posting this image:  I am not a cunt, but a dick; and mythopoetically in the context of this forum, Perseus represents me, and the head of Medusa is suchmoon.

Quote from: nullius on February 28, 2020, 04:29:45 PM

* My dick is bigger than a twitlib’s—where “dick” has a subtextual meaning of “supreme mastery of hermeneutics”, and its size is an allegory for my powers of mythological interpretation.

Laugh.  It’s hilarious!  🙃☮

---

Quote from: Foxpup on November 28, 2020, 01:30:13 AM

the forum's puritanical (and somewhat hypocritical) approach to moderation

I doubt that theymos himself is Puritanical.  If he were, then he would not run GGB.

My hypothesis is that the primary reason for the forum’s policy is that if porn gets posted here, then the forum will wind up being blocked by numerous censorware filters.  On pragmatic grounds, it would not be an unreasonable policy.  Of course, only theymos could say for sure if my thus inferences are correct.

Whereas the images that I have posted cannot reasonably be described as “porn”.  Not unless in substantial effect, one were to equate the Musée d’Orsay to a porno shop.

I did not expect for my posts to be deleted, because I did not expect that any of the staff here would go full John Ashcroft.  Thus, it was not my intention to make a “test case” here—but it is inadvertently a good test case for the boundaries of forum policy:

It is not porn.  It would be very foolish to claim that it is porn; this is not even a borderline, arguable question, such as with art-nude photography of a more or less sensual nature.  I reasonably interpreted “NSFW” as a euphemism for porn, or almost-porn, or arguably-porn.  —What does “NSFW” mean?

Quote from: Foxpup on November 28, 2020, 01:30:13 AM

(NSFW version) (Hopefully Cloudflare's stopped being a bastard about these links.)

I tried to look, so as better to understand your objection to forum policy.  Cloudflare threw me a Google CAPTCHA.  I don’t do those anymore, especially not for read-only viewing of a web resource.

---

Quote from: Csmiami on November 28, 2020, 02:07:35 AM

What an unexpected reaction to a predictable action

yourself:

• “Unexpected”?  In one of the deleted posts, I had explicitly promised that if necessary, I would defend this in Meta.  I am a man of my word.
  
  Quote from: nullius on November 28, 2020, 12:00:19 AM
  Quote from: nullius on November 27, 2020, 04:20:14 PM

  Quote from: nullius on November 27, 2020, 10:02:50 AM

  Despite my political and aesthetic disagreements with Courbet, I will defend this in Meta if
• “Predictable”?  I sincerely did not predict that I would need to defend it.  I did predict that somebody, somewhere would complain about it; no doubt, there are many complaints about my posts, very few of which have ever been deleted by the moderators.

There is no better way to make nullius go nuclear than to attack culture.

Quote from: Csmiami on November 28, 2020, 02:07:35 AM

Getting a bit more serious, yes, it is indeed art and that particular one displayed in museums. But this is a forum, not a museum;

Do you mean to suggest that this forum has higher standards than a museum?  

Quote from: Csmiami on November 28, 2020, 02:07:35 AM

<snip>
This whole situation would have been avoided with a simple tagged link instead of embedding the image.

Your value system is completely upside-down and inside-out.  I take the same offence to your suggestion as I would to the notion that I should need to hide away my interests in music—q.v. for a different pop-cultural allegory in the context hereof.

Quote from: nullius on November 26, 2020, 06:59:53 AM

Mood Musik for my friends to enjoy whilst reading my posts:  Free download of a public domain project!

Hotlinks to MP3s for all tracks (now playing):  Aria; Variation 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27–28, 29, 30; Aria da Capo è Fine.

24-bit FLAC is also available; see the above archive.org link for that, or for the handy in-browser Javascript musik player.