NEW RULES AGAINST "CUT N PASTE" THREADS APPARENTLY.

Well it didn't take long for the crackdown on speech in the political forum to happen.

This place was better served with ChicaChaser.

Question:

How many words out of an article can we "cut n paste" before a warning is issued?

Or is it measured by number of paragraphs?

How about images? How many images can we "cut n paste" ? Or not?

Is there one rule for Pro Obama "cut n paste" threads and a different word count for Anti Obama threads ?

To be fair, it seems that Pro Obama threads should be allowed a 2x factor over the anti Obama threads - based on my observations. The Pro Obama people need all the help they can get.

Just saying.

Link?

Ask the mod for that.......

Link? Originally Posted by boardman

Without some explanation of what you are talking about this thread is useless.
I don't see anything in the sticky. Did you receive a PM or something?

This ain't ; some nuclear rules still apply:edited by - dh

#9 - No form of private communications between members are to be posted in our forums. This includes the contents of emails, PMs, IMs, private chat logs, privately shared images, etc. This is an invasion of another's privacy and will not be allowed.

WTF?

Hopefully IFFy got told to quit spamming with all those video's. Big waste of band width IMHO.

If so , it seems reasonable.

Providing a link and a teaser seems normal. Providing a link and the whole article seems like band width waste too.

I'm not in the loop so just speculation on my part.




.

Question:

How many words out of an article can we "cut n paste" before a warning is issued?

Or is it measured by number of paragraphs?

How about images? How many images can we "cut n paste" ? Or not? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You Tea'billies can post no more paragraphs than you can actually read in a day. You're lucky with that rule, if you had to actually understood what ya read, you wouldn't ever get to post!

Well it didn't take long for the crackdown on speech in the political forum to happen.

This place was better served with ChicaChaser. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You didn't expect a straight answer did you whirlagay? Better to ask St Christopher.

This ain't edited by - dh; some nuclear rules still apply: Originally Posted by I B Hankering

What is this edited by - dh of which you speak?

So, reading between the lines you were given a directive that some of us were obviously not.
I assume you were given an explanation for that directive and why it applies to you and whoever else it may have been sent to and not the entire board or at least the following of this particular forum in the form of a sticky.

I happen to be constrained by a similar directive issued a couple of years ago to a select few. While I did not agree with the directive or the explanation I was given a choice to accept it or not. I chose to accept it as I am still posting. Appeal was not an option considering it came from on high.
It does suck.

Is there one rule for Pro Obama "cut n paste" threads and a different word count for Anti Obama threads ?

To be fair, it seems that Pro Obama threads should be allowed a 2x factor over the anti Obama threads - based on my observations. The Pro Obama people need all the help they can get.

Just saying. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Oh boy, you sound like Jessie Jackson quacking about discrimination. And, you don't see any "pro-Obama" people whining like your bitch-ass about limitations on ridiculous, never-ending, repetitive spam postings to the board, do you? You and that new 'tard spam poster LowRider69 are the ones that will be primarily effected.....

Where is the link to the new rule?

What is this edited by - dh of which you speak?

So, reading between the lines you were given a directive that some of us were obviously not.
I assume you were given an explanation for that directive and why it applies to you and whoever else it may have been sent to and not the entire board or at least the following of this particular forum in the form of a sticky.

I happen to be constrained by a similar directive issued a couple of years ago to a select few. While I did not agree with the directive or the explanation I was given a choice to accept it or not. I chose to accept it as I am still posting. Appeal was not an option considering it came from on high.
It does suck. Originally Posted by boardman

"Que Sera, Sera!"... Interpret it as you will. But if you're actually waiting for a reply that blatantly answers your question, be forewarned that certain nuclear rules are in place; hence, it's highly improbable that your question will be answered.

Without some explanation of what you are talking about this thread is useless.
I don't see anything in the sticky. Did you receive a PM or something? Originally Posted by boardman

I understand your dilemma....so I offer this...

Maybe it isn't a forum rule (equally applied) but just arbitrary enforcement by a Mod against people/opinions he doesn't like.

That is how liberals roll.

A clarification by the forum mod would be helpful........