Originally posted by Xkeeper

---

And as usual with me, you just have to give me a few days to burn out and remove it.

Generally it takes a few days (so just deal with it), but calmly reminding me with a PM sometimes does the job :p



p.s.: wow thayer kicked hh's ass

---

---

you're merely trying to backpedal here because you know you're wrong, and you're just making yourself worse. You have contributed nothing to this situation except to provide useless distractions in this thread for a very serious issue. [...] Now HyperHacker, your next post had better have something to do with the actual topic at hand, or you're just trying to pump your post count.

---

Originally posted by Thayer

---

---

And yet, I still fail to see where that explains the actual change involved.

---

First, you're the one who really isn't making sense here. I stated that it was still changing these in the post immediately after your first one.

---

---

Xkeeper's use "more explicit" is perfectly fine.

---

Originally posted by HyperHacker

---

---

you're merely trying to backpedal here because you know you're wrong, and you're just making yourself worse. You have contributed nothing to this situation except to provide useless distractions in this thread for a very serious issue. [...] Now HyperHacker, your next post had better have something to do with the actual topic at hand, or you're just trying to pump your post count.

---

Pot to kettle: You are black. Seriously, that last bit is about as valid as if I were to say that if your next post contains the letter M, you're secretly Elvis. You can't define the purpose of something that hasn't been created yet. I also can't seem to find what, exactly, you have contributed to this situation.

---

---

Originally posted by Thayer

---

---

And yet, I still fail to see where that explains the actual change involved.

---

First, you're the one who really isn't making sense here. I stated that it was still changing these in the post immediately after your first one.

---

Context, context, context. The post you've quoted is a direct reply to your own in which you quoted Xk. It should thus be obvious to most that the 'that' I speak of is Xk's post which you quoted. Said post contains not one piece of information regarding what, specifically, was changed.

---

---

---

Xkeeper's use "more explicit" is perfectly fine.

---

This may be true in exact by-the-book English, unfortunately, nobody actually does it by the book. While 'explicit' can, technically, mean 'specific', in practice the only widely accepted context is 'explicit language', 'sexually explicit', and similar varieties. The definition 'specific' of 'explicit' is outdated and for all means and purposes invalid.

---

---

It's obvious from your posts even before mine that you want no more than to incite a flame war. The filter was intended as a harmless joke, and having realized the problems it caused, Xk has announced that it will be removed. If you really wanted to simply point out the problem, there would have been no need to make your initial post and reply so negative. Either you have an attitude problem that you should look into, or you simply wanted to be an ass about the whole thing.

---

---

Oh yeah, and next time you have something to say to me, try just coming out and saying it. You can work a PM, can't you? To have someone else relay a negative message that you're perfectly capable of sending yourself is something a coward would do.

---

---

Get over yourself. I shant be reading any more of the drivel that spews from your modem. (Hope that answers your question. )

---

1. 1. Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.
   
   
   2. Fully and clearly defined or formulated: “generalizations that are powerful, precise, and explicit” (Frederick Turner).
      
   
   


2. Forthright and unreserved in expression: They were explicit in their criticism.


3. 1. Readily observable: an explicit sign of trouble.
   
   
   2. Describing or portraying nudity or sexual activity in graphic detail.
   
   

Originally posted by HyperHacker

---

---

Xkeeper's use "more explicit" is perfectly fine.

---

This may be true in exact by-the-book English, unfortunately, nobody actually does it by the book. While 'explicit' can, technically, mean 'specific', in practice the only widely accepted context is 'explicit language', 'sexually explicit', and similar varieties. The definition 'specific' of 'explicit' is outdated and for all means and purposes invalid.

---

Originally posted by Joakim von Anka

---

Originally posted by HyperHacker

---

Originally posted by Joakim von Anka

---

Originally posted by HyperHacker

---

Originally posted by Joakim von Anka

---

Originally posted by HyperHacker

---

Originally posted by Joakim von Anka

---

Hey, HyperHacker.

I'm here to bring to your attention some complaints from my fellow Acmlmer's. Please keep in mind these complaints do my reflect my attitude towards you.

Thayer suggests you take adult literacy classes.

Thanks, and merry Christmas.

---

If he's saying this, why are you sending the message?

---

Payback for making that uptime program that crashed my computer and ruined my uptime! ;-;

To be honest, I don't know.

---

Did it really? I'd appreciate some details if it did.

And did he actually ask you to say this?

---

It didn't actually crash, now that I think of it. It just made me accidently hit the windows key, S, and then enter quickly because I was typing something to you and I hit windows instead of shift.

---

Yeah, that happened to me once.

I'd still like to know if he actually asked you to say this, though, or just mentioned it in conversation. I don't much care what he thinks of me, but I'm curious about why he's having someone else send his messages for him.

---

I volunteered.

---

Originally posted by HyperHacker

---

And yet, I still fail to see where that explains the actual change involved. Had either of you correctly said "more specific", the sentence would have made actual sense. I can read posts fine. What I can't read is minds. When your post doesn't say what you intend it to, how can you expect me to read it as if it does?

---

Originally posted by HyperHacker

---

Context, context, context. The post you've quoted is a direct reply to your own in which you quoted Xk. It should thus be obvious to most that the 'that' I speak of is Xk's post which you quoted. Said post contains not one piece of information regarding what, specifically, was changed.

---

Originally posted by HyperHacker

---

It's obvious from your posts even before mine that you want no more than to incite a flame war. The filter was intended as a harmless joke, and having realized the problems it caused, Xk has announced that it will be removed. If you really wanted to simply point out the problem, there would have been no need to make your initial post and reply so negative.

---

Originally posted by Xkeeper

---

Turn off your bitchiness, the board.acmlm.net filter (hey look) was removed a long time ago.

---

Originally posted by Xkeeper

---

Turn off your bitchiness, the board.acmlm.net filter (hey look) was removed a long time ago.



...edit: upon actually reading this thread, can someone please remind me why he's staff again?

---

Originally posted by Blue Warrior

---

Hyper Hacker, reading through the whole thread, I have to agree with Thayer; you're not making a load of sense.
To sum up what happened for you, the .net part was changed, and it made linking very annoying. When Xk said "Exploicit," he meant "explicit," which was obvious, because he said that it was a typo afterwards.

Originally posted by HyperHacker

---

And yet, I still fail to see where that explains the actual change involved. Had either of you correctly said "more specific", the sentence would have made actual sense. I can read posts fine. What I can't read is minds. When your post doesn't say what you intend it to, how can you expect me to read it as if it does?

---

Originally posted by HyperHacker

---

Context, context, context. The post you've quoted is a direct reply to your own in which you quoted Xk. It should thus be obvious to most that the 'that' I speak of is Xk's post which you quoted. Said post contains not one piece of information regarding what, specifically, was changed.

---

If you can't understand that post, then there's seriously something wrong with you here. Xkeeper's post was perfectly understandable from my point of view, which is just about as normal as yours.

---

---

There is a large difference between a flame and disapproval. Thayer posted a notification of annoyance and disapproval about the change of the domain name. It was not an attack, therefore it cannot, under any circumstances, be considered flame. Saying it's a flame is like saying a good review of a Nintendo game makes that person a Nintendo fanboy.

---

Originally posted by max

---

well you seem to have a thing for keeping competent people off staff and incompetent people on staff so you should know best

---

Originally posted by Koneko

---

So... Because you live in a place (Canada, in fact... Nothing against it, just letting you know I noticed) where it's unusual for explicit to refer to anything but definition 3b by Elric's useful post, it was wrong for him to post that. That's your stance, right? That because it would be hard for some people to understand, he shouldn't have posted it?

Okay.

Let's not post anything from now on if there's even the slightest chance that someone won't understand it.

Right.

I suppose I should have mentioned that I'm talking to HyperHacker here, just so as to not violate this rule I just uncovered.

---

Originally posted by max

---

well you seem to have a thing for keeping competent people off staff and incompetent people on staff so you should know best

---