The South PacificBoard

Good God what an awful experience.

Have you ever tried to turn an mp3 file into an m4r so you can set is as an iphone ringtone? It’s a nightmare.

Is it just me or could someone be able to write an entire psychology doctorate thesis on double posting and how it affects the RMB in this region based off of the responses to the various rules over the years.

Bear Connors Paradiso wrote:

What an arbitrary amount of time and yet still no constituency if I reply to one person and then want to reply to a completely different person. Cant hold two conversations in this RMB, ridiculous.

You’re right. There is no possible way you could talk to two people in the same post. Ridiculous. Utterly impossible!

You’re entirely correct and I fully support double posting now, seeing this excellent and persuasive post.

Drystar wrote:

Okay, why? Explain your thought using logic and facts, not because you feel personally encumbered by a rule. And I really hate to tell you, but double posting has always been frowned upon on this rmb, so you can’t use the “back in my day” since I’ve been here way longer. If you can make a clear, concise, and intelligent argument for double posting, I’ll listen.

My dear, we simply must change the laws immediately! Think of the logic! The facts!

Shangyuen wrote:

The game I've been playing since it came out over a year ago.

2018, wasn't it?

Why do I have the urge to start Thermonuclear Armageddon?

Zess wrote:

My personal defense of double posting would mainly be that making two posts instead of one that you edit is barely any longer than the edited version would be, editing a post to add a response does not notify the person you are quoting, and double posting allows you to separate ideas so you aren’t saying “Hello!” to someone in the same post as making some serious argument.Hello!

Fair enough if slightly garbled, but unless you’re making two separate lengthy responses to some deep burning issues, why not wait a few minutes to say hello, or heck, just use a telegram. Awaiting with baited breath for a Zess sarcastic response...

Drystar wrote:

If she double posted it, you could...

And what possessed you to wear a pink IZOD?

It would be a capstone of 2020 when the great goddess double posts.

As for the shirt well I was only trying to sit at the cool kids table and I didn’t want to copy your style of keeping a unicorn Trapper Keeper in an Esprit bag.

Linguiniland wrote:

It would be a capstone of 2020 when the great goddess double posts.

As for the shirt well I was only trying to sit at the cool kids table and I didn’t want to copy your style of keeping a unicorn Trapper Keeper in an Esprit bag.

Auphelia already did last year, but then she deletes the second post and edits it into the first one. Don't act like it hasn't happened.

Zess wrote:

My personal defense of double posting would mainly be that making two posts instead of one that you edit is barely any longer than the edited version would be, editing a post to add a response does not notify the person you are quoting, and double posting allows you to separate ideas so you aren’t saying “Hello!” to someone in the same post as making some serious argument.Hello!

Hello!

Drystar wrote:

Well, it goes well with that Lime Green Member’s only jacket and reflective Ray-Bans, but why are you carrying that Nagel print?

Thanks, now I only need to find a pair of Reebok Pumps to complete the look. The purple Chuck Taylors are nice but not exactly what I want. And don’t draw too much attention to the print. It’s the Madonna one we’re giving to Volaworand for Canadian Thanksgiving.

Ohhh it’s a Magic 8-Ball Fox!!! I hope you’ve been keeping up on your cardio TSSS

Linguiniland wrote:

If I could like this post more than once I would.

Double liking, that’s what we need.

Drystar wrote:

If she double posted it, you could...

And what possessed you to wear a pink IZOD?

Now that’s an argument I can get behind.

Bear Connors Paradiso wrote:

No point in even reading the two replies to me, I could only reply to one and then the other person thinks I ignored them. Perfect example of how the law fails.

The reality is that the law doesn't work. It serves no purpose and stops communication between people. Yes, I could put both replies in the reply box, am I going to remember to do that every time, or if somebody replies to me immediately before I post my reply? Fudge off in the expletive. It aint gonna happen. Things happen that make this rule more problem than not. If someones seriously spamming the RMB that's another issue entirely, not just double posting.

Darling, I hate to have to be the one to tell you this . . . but replying to more than one person is - dare I say it? - extremely easy. In fact, it may very well be easier than double posting. Look at me go, replying to not one, not two , but three people! In one post!

Who knows how many more I can reply to! Perhaps I am a posting prodigy, possessing prodigious powers that perplex parties such as yourself. Or, and this is just a thought, you are being needlessly contrary and protesting a rule that is not in any way difficult to follow.

The Solar System Scope wrote:

Auphelia already did last year, but then she deletes the second post and edits it into the first one. Don't act like it hasn't happened.

I do that because I respect the rules. And I do not do it nearly as often as some, nor do I complain constantly on it constricting my Charter-created civil liberties.

Drystar wrote:

Fair enough if slightly garbled, but unless you’re making two separate lengthy responses to some deep burning issues, why not wait a few minutes to say hello, or heck, just use a telegram. Awaiting with baited breath for a Zess sarcastic response...

All you need to do is . . . say hello and have a deep debate in the same post. Shocking. And if you have multiple length sections, we have spoilers for that. See Exhibit A, anything 073 039 109 032 080 111 112 112 121 posts.

Bear Connors Paradiso wrote:

What an arbitrary amount of time and yet still no constituency if I reply to one person and then want to reply to a completely different person. Cant hold two conversations in this RMB, ridiculous. It only hurts the community when there are nonsense rules like these that PROHIBIT communication. Double posting should be OK, two should be the limit.

Or you could just quote both messages in a reply......

Drystar wrote:

It’s a rule, not a law. And I’d like to point out any argument you make for double posting, also works for triple posting, quadruple posting, and so on. So where do we draw the line?

Septoctogenuple posting.

That's 87 in a row.

Drystar wrote:

It’s a rule, not a law. And I’d like to point out any argument you make for double posting, also works for triple posting, quadruple posting, and so on. So where do we draw the line?

I usually draw the line on the ground, around The Solar System Scope, with salt and candles. It’s more of a circle really, but there are lines within the circle.