ColonelObvious

Umm, okay. I think you need to have a trigger warning for the word "running", which hereafter will be referred to as the "R-word" so as not to offend anyone else. You see, my second cousin twice removed's parents were K-worded in a tragic R-wording accident on New Year's Day and I am still recovering from the shock of the incident. I carry a therapy Chihuahua all the time now too, so please don't make any offensive comments about him as he is very small and can't R-word as fast as larger dogs and that is a continuing source of anguish for him. Please be considerate.

Maybe, just maybe, you should work on your personality instead.

No, Scylla only promotes very specific things that may or may not fit her own personal agenda, although she accuses others of doing or not doing the same thing. I guess you have to be a feminist to understand.

Affirmative. Close-minded pervs are nobody's friends. Carry on.

Nyll Bergbahn wrote: jwenting wrote: I'm usually divided between blocking them, ignoring them, or filing an AR against them for their TOS violation. Usually end up doing at least the second, and sometimes the first and last as well. By all means block or ignore residents who have that silly disclaimer in their profiles but why waste Linden Lab's time submitting an AR when a TOS violation only occurs if they actually do disclose chat without consent in-world or on Linden Lab's website and in that instance, it would be the aggrieved party who would submit the AR, not you (unless you were the aggrieved party). Simply having the disclaimer is not a TOS violation. Agreed. The best course of action would be to mute them and place a note in the comment tab of their profile explaining why they are muted so you'll remember later if you cross paths again. There is no reason to submit an AR for someone else's ignorance which can just as easily be remedied by a well-worded explanation from you or someone else who has the time. Carry on.