Love Zhaoying Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 21 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said: The whole situation has been repeated so many times that I skipped my "triple-dare" line, which is: On 4/2/2019 at 6:55 PM, Theresa Tennyson said: Another aspect of reality is that if someone in authority "suggests" that you do/not do something and your reply is, "Well, you didn't say I must so who cares?" it's very likely that you'll find the same authority figure handing down a very clear rule - in no uncertain terms - that's often quite a bit more draconian than the "suggestion." What are you suggesting? (intentional wordplay intended) For example: Authority figures are terrible at being "direct", or that individuals will ignore directives unless they are direct? (Ack, I did it again.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: What are you suggesting? (intentional wordplay intended) For example: Authority figures are terrible at being "direct", or that individuals will ignore directives unless they are direct? (Ack, I did it again.) If individuals ignore indirect directives, then they become direct. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 51 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said: You know, I'm pretty sure Terry has tried this tack several times before in other threads, and lost the argument EVERY SINGLE TIME, because zero second orbs are NOT against the real rules, that apply on Mainland. When did I ever say that they weren't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 6 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said: If individuals ignore indirect directives, then they become direct. Ah, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 2 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said: If individuals ignore indirect directives, then they become direct. And yet, your fraudulent claims of an "indirect directive" have NOT become a "direct directive" despite YEARS of ranting and screaming and whining by people who want to outlaw privacy. I wont hold my breath, and obey non-laws and non rules, just because some over-entitled privacy haters WANT the non-laws. Call me when they actually change. Meanwhile, business as usual, punt, ban, Abuse Report, mute, derender, job done , over-entitled trash dealt with. Relax with a cold beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Just now, Zalificent Corvinus said: And yet, your fraudulent claims of an "indirect directive" have NOT become a "direct directive" despite YEARS of ranting and screaming and whining by people who want to outlaw privacy. They became a direct directive on Bellisseria less than a month after the post I quoted. 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 3 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said: When did I ever say that they weren't? If you agree that zero second orbs are NOT illegal, then your "should = must" fail-argument has just been shot down on flames by... You. Thanks for conceding defeat in this fight. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 2 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said: should: Provide adequate warning to the undesired Resident. Only work within the property lines (this includes projectiles that cannot operate beyond the parcel boundaries). Not be excessive in the removal of the unwanted Resident. Pushing an avatar off the property or teleporting them home is generally acceptable; intentionally applying a script to disrupt someone's Second Life connection or online status is not allowed. The one thing they did say was NOT ALLOWED (see, they can say explicitly when something CANNOT be done) was intentionally applying a script to disrupt someone's Second Life connection or online status. It would have been simple enough from the start to say, Must provide adequate time yet they CHOSE not to. How you CHOOSE to interpret their wording doesn't change the fact that they haven't changed it to say MUST. The above is also where you are inferring that zero second orbs are against the rules by your interpretation. Anywho, keep on fighting that good fight or whatever. See you back in another 4-5 years when the rule still hasn't changed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said: If you agree that zero second orbs are NOT illegal, then your "should = must" fail-argument has just been shot down on flames by... You. Thanks for conceding defeat in this fight. I also didn't say they weren't illegal*. I have no authority, so my opinion as to whether or not something is allowed by those in authority is meaningless. That's a concept that a lot of people seem to have trouble with. *Actually, of course they're not "illegal", because they don't violate any real-world laws. Edited January 25 by Theresa Tennyson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 3 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said: They became a direct directive on Bellisseria less than a month after the post I quoted. The insane social engineering experiment in the Bellicosian Ant-Privacy zone doesn't apply on Mainland. So, it's irrelevant to any discussion about parcel security on Mainland. Call me when the ACTUAL Rules, on Mainland ACTUALLY change. Meanwhile, business as usual, punt, ban, Abuse Report, mute, derender, job done , over-entitled trash dealt with. Relax with a cold beer. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 6 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said: They became a direct directive on Bellisseria less than a month after the post I quoted. This thread isn't about Belli...just sayin'. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Doesn't "illegal" mean some RL law is broken? Can Linden Lab have us put in RL jail? Or, is "against the TOS" actually meant? This is SOO confusing! Why can't people just say what they mean?!? I guess the temptation to change words to reinforce hyperbole is just too great. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 minute ago, Theresa Tennyson said: I have no authority, so my opinion as to whether or not something is allowed by those in authority is meaningless. That's a concept that a lot of people seem to have trouble with. Including you it seems, LL say they are legal, you keep trying to prove they are not, and failing. You admit you don't make the rules, LL do, the rules LL made say "you LOSE". Call me when the ACTUAL Rules, on Mainland ACTUALLY change. Meanwhile, business as usual, punt, ban, Abuse Report, mute, derender, job done , over-entitled trash dealt with. Relax with a cold beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 3 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: Doesn't "illegal" mean some RL law is broken? Can Linden Lab have us put in RL jail? Or, is "against the TOS" actually meant? This is SOO confusing! Why can't people just say what they mean?!? I guess the temptation to change words to reinforce hyperbole is just too great. Edited it. Accidentally inhaled some of the codswallop for a second. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 5 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: This thread isn't about Belli...just sayin'. This whole time, all these arguments are off topic? Wow!! Poor Gabriele. (Some people have a higher tolerance for their threads going off-topic than others.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriele Graves Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: This whole time, all these arguments are off topic? Wow!! Poor Gabriele. (Some people have a higher tolerance for their threads going off-topic than others.) It's OK, I'll be alright. I just need to be dramatic first. 1 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 5 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said: Including you it seems, LL say they are legal, you keep trying to prove they are not, and failing. You admit you don't make the rules, LL do, the rules LL made say "you LOSE". When did they say that? Even using the "codswallop" definition of "legal", mind you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 minute ago, Theresa Tennyson said: When did they say that? Even using the "codswallop" definition of "legal", mind you. Should != Must No matter how many times you spew codswallop claiming otherwise. Please provide evidence that LL punishes the use of zero second trash-punter orbs by home owners on Mainland. Please provide evidence that LL have EVER said "zero second orbs are not allowed on Mainland". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 11 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said: It's OK, I'll be alright. I just need to be dramatic first. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 12 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said: When did they say that? Even using the "codswallop" definition of "legal", mind you. Is a "codswallop" like a Rubberhead? Per Steve Martin, they scream and throw fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Just now, Love Zhaoying said: Is a "codswallop" like a Rubberhead? Replacement for "flapdoodle." Because I used "flapdoodle with a very, very different* forum poster a few years ago so I retired it. *Like EXTRA different. Really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 20 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: This whole time, all these arguments are off topic? Wow!! Poor Gabriele. (Some people have a higher tolerance for their threads going off-topic than others.) From the one who speaks so much and says so little. literally Codswallop: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 3 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said: Replacement for "flapdoodle." Because I used "flapdoodle with a very, very different* forum poster a few years ago so I retired it. *Like EXTRA different. Really. A, I understand, in a special way. A wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse. Wink wink, nudge nudge? Know what I mean? Say no more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 19 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said: It's OK, I'll be alright. I just need to be dramatic first. Longest running thread in the Mainland Land forum in a long time. You are to be commended for starting it. I'm sure there is one at least who is jealous. 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now