Someone wanting to carry out a mass shooting wants to inflict maximum damage to his victims, and going to a gun free zone will mean the shooter has an extended time until he encounters any kind of resistance to his attack. If a shooter were to go into a school in which all the teachers have guns, he would be stopped nearly immidiately, which is not what he wants, so he will not even try.
I am not a fan of the idea of arming teachers. First, teachers would be required to go through at least similar levels of training as police in order to make that viable. The whole, give a vigilante good guy a gun and a 30 minute seminar on how to operate the safety and you are good to go is simply not the case. It might be some people's wet dream to be able to shoot a home invader, but for people who aren't deranged, there is a lot psychologically that goes into actually making the decision to shoot someone, even in a life or death situation. If you put someone who isn't extensively trained into a situation where they are in possession of a weapon and afraid for their life, you end up with bad results. No matter how heroic someone is, it takes a lot of training to be able to go against your body's fight or flight response to behave calmly and not make mistakes. Lets say that somehow every school has a teacher that has been in a combat position in the military or something, who is going to fund them? From my experience, teachers are constantly fighting the government for budget, because they are paying for chalk/whiteboard markers out of pocket. I can't see there being the budget for guns, ammo, training, extra wages for time spent training, hazard pay? I am sure some number of teachers already have the requisite training to be able to safely carry a gun in a school, and there are probably more teachers who are generally interested in this training but have not gotten around to obtaining said skills. [/quote] Also, every teacher doesn't need to have a gun, teachers only need to have the option to carry a gun in the school. The goal is not necessarily for the teacher to win a gunfight with an attempted mass shooter, the goal is to deter the mass shooter from going to the school in the first place. |
|
|
|
I do not want to sound politically bias (although it may sound like) but I really feel devastated about the results. I mean, there are lots of candidates whose credentials are far more fitting than most of them. Voting someone who just stole millions of Pesos from the people and still won on the elections?
People will often not vote for the person based on their personal character, they will vote based on the candidates agenda. Unless there is some evidence of election fraud, or that the elections were otherwise unfair, I would not say that democracy is dead. You need something beyond not liking/agreeing with the outcome. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think the posts are off topic. I think the posts are not 50-merit worthy, and probably not merit worthy at all.
Merit should be given to posts that are objectively high quality, or types of posts that we as a forum want more of.
Others in this thread believe Vod was intentionally acting out in an effort to get fired from being a merit source.
|
|
|
|
I was under the impression she is going to fully recover from the cancer she had. I do agree that RGB is very old and will probably not last through the end of Trump's second term if he get reelected. This is of course speculation. Well... let me put in some additional details. Darth Vader Ginsburg is not a smoker and the cancer nodules which were removed from her lungs were not a result of either active or passive smoking. Those were a result from other medical conditions. She was diagnosed with colon cancer in 1999, and with pancreatic cancer in 2009. Her medical team claims that in both cases, it was early stage cancer and the treatment was 100% success. But now, it looks possible that the nodules were result of metastatic disease from either of the two earlier cases. That means that her treatment for the earlier cancer cases were not exactly 100% successful. Cancer has spread from colon or pancreas, to the lungs. Her doctors can try to hide this fact, and claim that these nodules will not reappear again. They have reasons to do so. But I am skeptical. If the disease is spreading, then more and more nodules will be found and in some cases the surgeons may not be able to remove them. In such a situation, given her age, she may have 3 to 6 months left to live. I think you are assuming this was the same cancer each time. This may not be the case. Ginsburg is having a dedicated team to look after the PR campaign. Every day, they are claiming that she is as healthy as an eighteen year old.
Ultimately her health doesn't matter as long as she is alive. She has a lifetime appointment and can continue to serve until she either dies or retires (or is impeached, but this is unlikely). Trump should respect RBGs lifetime appointment. If he is seen as trying to push her out because she is sick (even if she is very sick), he will have difficulty getting any replacement confirmed. |
|
|
|
And I have seen you give away merit (the max you owned) to people that support your position.  Difference? Vod has accused me of giving 50 merit to a post that supported my position. I asked for an example and received no response. I have done neither. You received no response because that's not what he said. "max you owned" :=/= 50 merit I have only depleted my sMerit balance a small number of times, and the last of what I spent has always been a very small amount. Spending 2 or 3 sMerit is of no consequence just because it is the "last" of my sMerit. |
|
|
|
On the same thread you got more than 10 merit for only 2 words post. I can't control what other people do, and the post was objectively funny. The post I received merit on also was not taking anyone's side. Vod's recent merit history is him giving merit in exchange for support. |
|
|
|
He is giving away 50 merit (the monthly maximum) to anyone supporting his position.
And I have seen you give away merit (the max you owned) to people that support your position. Difference? I don’t believe I have ever given away 50 merit to anyone in a single transaction nor in a single month. I also don’t give out merit based on the position they have in a dispute. You are going to have to provide an example of either of these things happening. You are also a merit source, who should be held to a higher standard. None of the posts you recently gave the remaining balance of the maximum merit you can give in a month reasonably deserve that much merit. Vod has accused me of giving 50 merit to a post that supported my position. I asked for an example and received no response. I have done neither. |
|
|
|
Worded the way you have asked the question, BitcoinTalk > OGNasty, every single time. I have no loyalty to that man, I don't know him, I just see something that we all agree is wrong, DOXING, and it warrants negative trust - in my opinion, at least temporarily.
It is not about loyalty, simply about numbers. Please don't mix everything up as the effect of your actions was to directly discredit Vod. I am saying that your actions put more people at risk of getting scammed, than save people from being doxxed. There is an incoherence with you reply, as you defend a single man to the detriment of the rest of naive newbies and users. When a next moon comes, how many people will be safer after they read Vod's stickies ? How many more people will Vod dox ? How will people feel after reading a sticky with a red box saying that the community believe the OP is a scammer ? Switch the roles, you'd still be wrong. (Assuming the roles, and all the past actions are switched as well). That is nonsense. Vods "contributions" do not give him an excuse to act this way. If anything he should be held to a higher standard because others will look to him for how to behave because of his standing. |
|
|
|
Vod has a history of acting this way.
Frankly I am surprised anyone even decided to try to stand up to him. It is a good thing people are finally opening their eyes about him.
LOL. I didn’t hesitate to call him out. All he can do is tell lies. There’s literally nothing to fear from him. He’s a neutered user here now, biting at the hands of those dog walking him. Many people seemed to have feared him in the past. As you have seen once you stood up to him, he consistently trolls anyone critical of him. He also has shown himself to hold grudges. He had used his position on DT to intimidate others. People were afraid of having their reputation trashed by getting on his bad side. Why do you think he has so much merit? I can tell you it isn’t because he makes good posts... |
|
|
|
It bums me out to keep seeing these topics. At first they were just annoying, but its getting pretty sad to see. I like Vod, Quickseller, and OgNasty, as well as the handful of others chiming in. Does anyone actually truly care that someone is sending a debatable amount of merits, or have you decided to make lifelong vendettas over stupid stuff that probably barely effects anyone? If you haven't set fire to each other's houses or screwed each other's dog, is it really worth continuing bickering? It just makes the forum feel more gloomy and less unified. You all have better things to do than fight with each other online, so why keep wasting your own time? You don't need to get along, but knowing when to just ignore someone rather than expending 100 hours responding to a fired shot is a valuable skill. If you keep at it, I'm going to have to start hanging out with the spam bots to avoid pointless forum drama.   I care about the integrity of the system. Vods actions compromise that integrity. Although I hadn’t seen it when I created this thread, Vod had asked to resign from being a merit source prior to my opening this thread. It appears, and others agree, that Vods actions are an attempt to get himself fired from being a merit source. This is instead of resigning gracefully. |
|
|
|
That is a ridiculous assertion and is based on the fact Vod is your employer.
Thanks for the clarification /sarcasm  , however, my employer is who I work for practically every day of my life to feed my family and have a place to live, and that's not Vod. Your "facts" seem a bit flawed. What else is new?? He is paying you for work on a regular basis. The conflict exists regardless of if i am referring to your day job or a side gig that gives you extra pocket cash. |
|
|
|
Received thanks. I am glad everything worked out for you. |
|
|
|
I had not seen that post. Presumably, Vod is purposefully giving merit inappropriately in an effort to get fired as a merit source, instead of resigning with grace. |
|
|
|
He is giving away 50 merit (the monthly maximum) to anyone supporting his position.
And I have seen you give away merit (the max you owned) to people that support your position. Difference? I don’t believe I have ever given away 50 merit to anyone in a single transaction nor in a single month. I also don’t give out merit based on the position they have in a dispute. You are going to have to provide an example of either of these things happening. You are also a merit source, who should be held to a higher standard. None of the posts you recently gave the remaining balance of the maximum merit you can give in a month reasonably deserve that much merit. |
|
|
|
I will bet 1 person here 0.000001 btc that if OG gets audited he will get a refund
To say that og doesn't pay his taxes is a joke. Isn't his wife/girlfriend an accountant or a lawyer or something like that
Who’s gonna escrow? I can |
|
|
|
Vod is giving multiple people 50 merit for very low effort posts (they are on topic and not necessarily wrong) in a thread discussing something that reflects on him poorly. He is giving away merit to people supporting him. I am referring to this thread. Although he is also giving 50 merit to others who have recently supported him. His status as a merit source should be revoked and reversing the merit transactions should be considered. So you are saying that if his post wasn't about OG than you wouldn't be knocking him since you are an OG supporter? If he wasn't a merit source it would be okay for him to give away his merit as he sees fit correct? Who is to say that 50 merit he gave came from his earned smerit He is giving away 50 merit (the monthly maximum) to anyone supporting his position. |
|
|
|
|
Vod has a history of acting this way.
Frankly I am surprised anyone even decided to try to stand up to him. It is a good thing people are finally opening their eyes about him.
|
|
|
|
So that there is no possible way for my feedback to be misconstrued; I have removed the 500 BTC risked. I can tell that it will create a divide, and distract from the actual issue meant to be tackled. Somehow, I doubt that is going to change anything.
Since you have now endangered Vod due to the people who are going to hunt him down thinking he was a scammer who took or was trying to take 500BTC, should I be leaving you feedback now?  That is a ridiculous assertion and is based on the fact Vod is your employer. |
|
|
|
Vod is giving multiple people 50 merit for very low effort posts (they are on topic and not necessarily wrong) in a thread discussing something that reflects on him poorly. He is giving away merit to people supporting him. I am referring to this thread. Although he is also giving 50 merit to others who have recently supported him. His status as a merit source should be revoked and reversing the merit transactions should be considered. |
|
|
|
Plagiarism is undoubtedly both very wrong, and a major problem within the forum, but I don't see the benefit of removing someone who only did damage (plagiarized) years ago, especially if they are now otherwise being a member who is contributing to the forum. There's a flaw in this ideology. Let me simplify the structure of my thoughts into four alternative timelines for a given plagiarist. P:= plagiarizing user S:= plagiarized post. 1) P posts S. No one catches onto P. P, over a long time, contributes much to the forum. S is discovered years later. P is let go scot-free. 2) P posts S. No one catches onto P. P is an average user and much time passes. S is discovered years later. P is permanently banned. 3) P posts S. No one catches onto P. P is trying to contribute to the forum: they add some contribution. S is discovered weeks later. P is permanently banned. 4) P posts S. No one catches onto P. P is not trying to contribute to the forum. S is discovered weeks later. P is permanently banned. The difference between 1 and 3 is the time between the discovery of S and the time it was posted. One user is pardoned because of their contributions. Another is not because they did not fulfill the baseline requirements of minimum contribution. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Retort: "They should have contributed right away!" If both users 1 and 3 had the same localized post quality and contributory status, the situation would play our similarly. (after all, if you're copy-pasting, it's unlikely your post quality suddenly spikes) I am not arguing for anyone who has plagiarized to get off scott free, I am saying they shouldn’t be banned forever. There is a reason why most jurisdictions has statute of limitations laws, and I think there should similarly be limits for forum punishments, especially permanent bans. If the plagiarism is only a week or a month old, any subsequent contributions are not going to be relevant. If a year or two has gone by, and in that time, the person has not caused harm, he has shown himself to be someone who will not cause additional harm if he is allowed to continue participating. The person who plagiarized a month ago has not shown this. Also the administration should have caught the person sooner for the one plagiarized two years ago. Someone could have a legitimate defense to what they did, but might have lost the evidence or forgotten the circumstances under which they made a few posts years ago. I think the number of people with legitimate defenses are few and far between, however *everyone* has the right to get to try to defend themselves. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
