You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

rwb ago

With extreme malice aforethought, you and others set yourselves the task of doing anything and everything within your capabilities to get David Seaman to stop talking about PG, hound the man until you get exactly what you want, and then complain when you've won instead of savoring your short lived victory in private, because the joke's on you. If or when the fancy strikes David, he'll come back to the subject and send you losers into yet another round of wailing that you wish David would shut up. And when he does, he'll do so because he can do anything he feels like in spite of the deep desires of a few dozen malcontents hell bent on destroying the PG research community.

ZPEnergyPsyOp ago

@rwb voting habits:

Submissions: This user has upvoted 83 and downvoted 2 submissions.

Comments: This user has upvoted 150 and downvoted 1 comments.


Not surprising that a person who has only found 3 pieces of information to help curate by downvoating is sticking up for the confirmed shill David Seaman

rwb ago

Downvoting is for losers, and in some ways I regret downvoting anything, but if it helps your thesis, I almost certainly downvoted three items submitted by you or one of your cohorts that were so bad I had no alternative. I upvote interesting and relevant content that will help put Podesta and Co. in jail.

VieBleu ago

Downvoting is not for losers, it is how things operate here. Anyone who does not use their downvote is facilitating shills whether they are conscious of it or not.

rwb ago

I use my down vote privilege, albeit very selectively. Down voting would be effective if one had to put their name to it. Down voting anonymously allows so called shills to run roughshod over legitimate and well intentioned posters, hence my reluctance to potentially appear to be a party to it. If people had to put their name to down votes, shills would become transparent very quickly. By my rationale, I am attempting to shift the voting dynamic in a way that benefits the forum, not that it's remotely feasible. It's merely a decision based on principle, like one choosing to not eat meat even though the impact on the brutalization of animals in modern farming practice is going to be thoroughly negligible.

VieBleu ago

the shills widly upvoat their own, and don't downvote as much. thus your arguement falls.

rwb ago

Mmmm... That's an opinion, one you're obviously entitled to, but one I do not share.

VieBleu ago

it is not an opinion. It is an objective fact that the shills upvote terrible posts as a group of about 30-40. They don't downvote by usually more than 4 or 5 at most.

The good person's downvote is one of the only weapons we are allowed by our keeper mods against the shills.
You can often see comments of flabbergasted people saying, "Where did all these upvotes come from" and "Why so many upvotes and so few comments" and so on.