@davidt you are full of shit

Quando quando quando

Well-Known Member
Well, I can't take the credit, it wasn't my scheme, I was only a small cog :) But thank you for your nice words.

Yes, I do understand but that is exactly what it comes down to.
The understanding all small efforts put together can make that happen.
If people can’t appreciate the small efforts they miss out on seeing the worth of the big picture as that is the total of the small efforts by all people.
 

g23

Always crashing in the same car
Surely, David had to have had a shit by now? I'll pray for this devil constipation to leave his bowels and leave him as light as a feather. In Jesus name, amen.
 

swift eclipse

Active Member
Surely, David had to have had a shit by now? I'll pray for this devil constipation to leave his bowels and leave him as light as a feather. In Jesus name, amen.

If not, I bet some of that hot sauce would help move things along a bit...or perhaps a good flogging?

(Only kidding David. You know I love ya!)
 

g23

Always crashing in the same car
If not, I bet some of that hot sauce would help move things along a bit...or perhaps a good flogging?

(Only kidding David. You know I love ya!)
Maybe the next batch. Like I said, this one was sweet and mild. But if he can hold on for a few more weeks through the power of prayer and fortitude, I will happily send a jar to help blast that devil blockage out! Hababadaloo loo Shahamma RAH! Radadah bah SHAH! Praise the Jesus! Let him MOVE, OH LORD JESUS!
 
N

Nathalie

Guest
You talk in definitives with an insight in to something you can not ever fully know to be correct. The 'aggression' at David was unfair as it was attributed to a conscious act on his behalf and that has been proven not to be (see the valentine's event on the front page for details). Grown adults can communicate to a diverse group of people (even when impassioned) without being ridiculously heated, rude, accusatory et al. There have been many, many posts on this forum that go beyond a pictorial idiom - with far less 'sensitivity' shown by many grown, functional adults. Unfortunately, by sounding like an apologist you only let people see that you potentially have concrete, non-critical thinking. You do not know that person's internal workings and can only offer an opinion. It is equally plausible that it was insane ranting. Being able to consider both possibilities and adapt your view is the most sophisticated, adult way to present yourself to strangers - which is sadly lacking here often.
Regards,
FWD.

I agree, Nathalie, it can. But he was aggressively pursuing the argument and relentlessly trolling me and others for three days - that's not a spontaneous 'freak'. The vile, crazy things he was saying about David were out of order. I agree with FWD that you cannot possibly know his motivation and it's not for you to offer up excuses. I do find, on internet forums and also in the real world, that when a lot of people all have the same reaction to someone's behaviour they are usually not wrong.


I hear everything you say, Peppermint and FWD.
I wasn't looking for an apology to Vegan.Cro. No, like you both, I can't know his internal working. Like everyone else on this forum, I just noticed one fact : his foolish answers to David and to members despite all the explanations.

First, I also said to myself, "he's delirious" but I don't stick to my first quick conclusion as the only explanation for his behavior.
FWD, like you, I can consider both possibilities:
"It is equally plausible that it was insane ranting." OK.
The possible beliefs of Vegan.Cro (which you may not know FWD) are another plausible hypothesis. They do not justify his reactions which may lead to banish him but they explain them.

His wrong was not to seek dialogue by remaining only on "You do not see what this picture means" + insults, instead of "Here is my vision and what I feel". Damage. Because emotions are part of dialogue. This is more the all important in written communication in a forum, I think.

“There have been many, many posts on this forum that go beyond a pictorial idiom - with far less 'sensitivity' shown by many grown, functional adults.”
FWD, do you find this regrettable or not ?
 

Peppermint

Well-Known Member
His wrong was not to seek dialogue by remaining only on "You do not see what this picture means" + insults, instead of "Here is my vision and what I feel". Damage. Because emotions are part of dialogue. This is more the all important in written communication in a forum, I think.
That's a fair point, Nathalie.
 

Famous when dead

Vulgarian
Moderator
Personally, I think that you should tailor your responses to the group not expect the group to accept anything you decide to emote. Again, the basis of your argument presupposes that someone's intentions were 'pure' - descending in to puerile, juvenile name calling says nothing about animal welfare - absolutely nothing. There are many, many ways to communicate unhappiness with something without descending in to ridiculous behaviour. The fact it has do be done in a public setting instead of via private message speaks volumes.
As for 'regrettable' - I believe the internet comes with inherent risks - like seeing things you don't like - I find the most mature way of handling said is to ignore and move on - if you start doing 'hashtag outrage' in front of a diverse group of people - you achieve zero. Switched on adults can grasp that concept. I found the Morrissey is a paedophile comments a while back abhorrent (some good members left as a result), but didn't type pages of abuse at the site's owner.
Keeping in mind the title of this thread and the fact that David (for the upteenth time) didn't post the picture in the way he was wrongly accused of - what exactly did this person achieve with their diatribe?
I know lots of people passionate about animals who can communicate a point to a group without looking like they might need medication (and, of course, better still say nothing as it's the internet and nobody EVER changes their view because of online opinions contrary to their own).
I think you are conflating being rude and abusive with impassioned - there is a very distinct difference and the fact that you still assert a 'better' understanding of someone's motivations indicates further dialogue is futile.
Peter posted a picture that got hijacked by FB & Twitter and is a bug as clearly evidenced. People called David names as a result and accused him of all sorts - relentlessly. They were wrong to do so regardless of the value they put on a drawing of an idiom. That really doesn't require any further explanation. I'm done with the topic.
FWD.
 

vegan.cro

Banned
Vegan.Cro is not a ranting lunatic. (I took the words of Peppermint but this post is not specially for her/him).

Even if it’s only a metaphor (used in French as well, and I understood it as you all did), the aggressiveness of Vegan.Cro shows a hyper-sensitivity to the act of killing, to the consciousness of the next death and to the relentlessness after death. Everybody can see the dead body of a horse. Vegan.Cro sees beyond the corpse of a moral being : death given by someone, consciousness of dying, death in suffering and relentlessly after death (imagine the few seconds during which there is no brain death yet).

I know, it's not even a photography, not even a hyper-realistic drawing, just a picture, just a metaphor. That's why after the first few seconds of shock, I didn't feel the need to talk because I understood that Peter really gave his opinion through this metaphor; his purpose was not to shock.

Even if the text would have been written in place of the drawing, I’m sure that Vegan.Cro would have had the same reaction. He needed to shout (and that’s what he did) that he was outraged : his antispeciesist beliefs outweigh the profound meaning of the picture and the vision of death, the ultimate prejudice, outtakes the metaphor. And it was so violent for him that he became aggressive towards David. Aggressive because deeply offended by a post. Aggressiveness that he turned to David in this thread and in this thread only, not elsewhere.

It would be sad if the personality of Vegan.Cro was judged because of a big anger and that he is banned even if his words "Davidt you are full of shit" are not righteous.

Voilà. Parfois on pète les plombs. To freak sometimes can happen to everyone.

Thank you for your kind words. I stand by every word I said. Good night dear friend.
 
0

001

Guest
Peter posted a picture that got hijacked by FB & Twitter and is a bug as clearly evidenced. People called David names as a result and accused him of all sorts - relentlessly. They were wrong to do so regardless of the value they put on a drawing of an idiom. That really doesn't require any further explanation. I'm done with the topic.
FWD.

FWD, why didn't David delete the tweet?
 

Famous when dead

Vulgarian
Moderator
FWD, why didn't David delete the tweet?
He changed the picture in the original posts and it hasn't changed - if you look at the original post you will see the picture is now of the amazon listing - it hasn't updated on either platform. As I pointed out in the valentine's event thread - your 'f*** Morrissey-solo' picture has done exactly the same as David was accused of and appeared in someone else's post without malice aforethought. Go look for yourself and see how incorrect you both were to blame the site owner for a picture posted by Peter - better still, save your dislikes and go talk directly to him.
I'm totally done.
FWD.
 
0

001

Guest
He changed the picture in the original posts and it hasn't changed - if you look at the original post you will see the picture is now of the amazon listing - it hasn't updated on either platform. As I pointed out in the valentine's event thread - your 'f*** Morrissey-solo' picture has done exactly the same as David was accused of and appeared in someone else's post without malice aforethought. Go look for yourself and see how incorrect you both were to blame the site owner for a picture posted by Peter - better still, save your dislikes and go talk directly to him.
I'm totally done.
FWD.

I think you've misunderstood FWD.

Why would the owner of a Morrissey fan site WANT that image associated with info of a new 7"?

My comment in another thread that included the 'f*** Morrissey-Solo.com' image was intentional. I knew, as did Uncleskinny, that my image would be linked with Twitter and that David would do nothing about it.

Because David is full of shit.

If he had any intention of making this site better then he'd pay attention to the members.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ketamine Sun

HANG THEM HIGH VERONICA
I think you've misunderstood FWD.

Why would the owner of a Morrissey fan site WANT that image associated with info of a new 7"?

My comment in another thread that included the 'f*** Morrissey-Solo.com' image was intentional. I knew, as did Uncleskinny, that my image would be linked with Twitter and that David would do nothing about it.

Because David is full of shit.

If he had any intention of making this site better then he'd pay attention to the members.





even if David intentionally used that image with info of a new 7", what is the problem ? ( besides peoples sensitivity to issues of animal rights)

even if it was intentional ( he says it was not) then that would mean he shares the same opinion of it that Uncleskinny does. And what's wrong with that?

We all can have an opinion, and David has created a place where pretty much everyone is free to do so.

Or did I miss something?
 
0

001

Guest
even if David intentionally used that image with info of a new 7", what is the problem ? ( besides peoples sensitivity to issues of animal rights)

even if it was intentional ( he says it was not) then that would mean he shares the same opinion of it that Uncleskinny does. And what's wrong with that?

We all can have an opinion, and David has created a place where pretty much everyone is free to do so.

Or did I miss something?

David said that he wants to make this site better.
He's received a number of complaints and done nothing.

The moment that someone posts a thread about a new 7" single, guess who posts an image criticizing the release of the single?

The tweet includes Uncleskinny's pic.

Why would the owner of a fan site want that image associated with news about a new 7" single?

Did David delete it and repost? No.

Why not?
 

davidt

Administrator
Staff member
Moderator
Subscriber
You make a few assumptions which are not correct. I did look into the cause of it and uploaded a new image to the article on the site. I looked into how Twitter and Facebook associate images and see that they do not update their images once the tweet / post goes out. On the Facebook end I purged the cache on the developer site for the link and see the updated image but the post for whatever reason doesn't update. Maybe it will later or maybe it won't, that's something that's on the Facebook / Twitter side that I don't control.

Now, why don't I just delete it and re-post it? That may be 'better' according to you but for me it isn't. The post already went out, people have commented and liked, retweeted, whatever. The "damage" of the post has already been done. It would be pointless, redundant and a bit confusing to re-post the same article link. Some people are offended by the image if they just look at it on the surface (no one has actually said that they were) but if they click on the link they will see the context.

Also, I'm busy with other things so it was not a high priority but the rude way in which the change was demanded made it an even lower priority.

David said that he wants to make this site better.
He's received a number of complaints and done nothing.

The moment that someone posts a thread about a new 7" single, guess who posts an image criticizing the release of the single?

The tweet includes Uncleskinny's pic.

Why would the owner of a fan site want that image associated with news about a new 7" single?

Did David delete it and repost? No.

Why not?
 

Ketamine Sun

HANG THEM HIGH VERONICA
David said that he wants to make this site better.
He's received a number of complaints and done nothing.

The moment that someone posts a thread about a new 7" single, guess who posts an image criticizing the release of the single?

The tweet includes Uncleskinny's pic.

Why would the owner of a fan site want that image associated with news about a new 7" single?

Did David delete it and repost? No.

Why not?

David said that he wants to make this site better.

better for whom ? You know he can't please everyone.

He's received a number of complaints and done nothing.

complaints? you mean opinions about Uncleskinny's opinions ? All I can say is that it's Davidt's site and he's not forcing anyone to stay.

'The moment that someone posts a thread about a new 7" single, guess who posts an image criticizing the release of the single?'

well, we're all free here to post our opinions, like 'em or not.

'Did David delete it and repost? No.'

he did say he tried to fix it.


'Did David delete it and repost? No.

Why not?'



Maybe because the way he was asked to do it?

'Sure, I could do that but since you and another user demanded it in such an entitled way, it's staying. Anyone who clicks the link can see the context in which it was posted'

- davidt post #173

' The site itself is fine, are you talking about the Facebook and Twitter bugs (or 'features')? I said I would look for "suggestions", but you might be able to tell I don't respond well to "bitchy demands".

- davidt post #185













 

Oh my

Enough! or Too much
You make a few assumptions which are not correct. I did look into the cause of it and uploaded a new image to the article on the site. I looked into how Twitter and Facebook associate images and see that they do not update their images once the tweet / post goes out. On the Facebook end I purged the cache on the developer site for the link and see the updated image but the post for whatever reason doesn't update. Maybe it will later or maybe it won't, that's something that's on the Facebook / Twitter side that I don't control.

Now, why don't I just delete it and re-post it? That may be 'better' according to you but for me it isn't. The post already went out, people have commented and liked, retweeted, whatever. The "damage" of the post has already been done. It would be pointless, redundant and a bit confusing to re-post the same article link. Some people are offended by the image if they just look at it on the surface (no one has actually said that they were) but if they click on the link they will see the context.

Also, I'm busy with other things so it was not a high priority but the rude way in which the change was demanded made it an even lower priority.

Facebook's memory cache is quite stubborn when it comes to shared URLs. It keeps the "first version" that was shared for quite a long time.
 
Top Bottom