Jump to content

Phil Deakins

Resident
  • Content Count

    11,705
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Phil Deakins

  1. Perhaps, but the "tone" has remained civil, which is what Rolig said
  2. @Luna Bliss LittleMe is one of those few that I mentioned, who are usually nice but occasionally stoop to using the laugh as scorn. So she may be posting with that in mind - i.e. being defensive of the practise.
  3. "Implying"? When the best a person can do is post an image to signify scorn, but has no words to explain it, there's no need to imply anything. It's self-evident
  4. ... or any evidence of being less stupid that the target. Quite the opposite, in fact lol.
  5. @Love Zhaoying Occasionally I suppose an emoji could be ambigious, but not the laugh. It's pretty obvious when a laugh is intended as scorn. The exception is, perhaps, when, for some reason, a post does make someone laugh (humorously) even though it wasn't written as humour. A laugh isn't any sort of a sensible response when a post doesn't make much sense. Why would anyone laugh, without comment, as the sole indication that a post doesn't make much sense? Confused is the one for that, or, better still, a post saying that you don't uderstand it, please explain what you mean. A laugh doesn't indicate that a post doesn't make much sense.
  6. It'll get no attention at all after reading the complaint. But, if the person can correctly say that so-and-so laughs scornfully on every post I make - or on most of them - then I think would be taken seriously.
  7. To be fair to the OP (although I have no reason to be), she has been on the wrong end of some idiotic descisions here (2 that I know of), so, now that she's back as her real self, instead of that disease, forumities, she probably wants to make sure that she's not on the wrong end of bad decisions again. In this case, she wants to make sure that she can intentionally pour scorn on people, by using the laugh inappropriately. She's been practising it in this thread lol.
  8. Substitute the phrase 'cause someone else distress' with 'negatively affect someone else's emotions,' and that's exactly how some low-minded people use it here. I don't think it can cause actual distress but, when used that way, it is intended to get right up someone else's nose, possibly upsetting the person. There are examples of it right here in this thread. Even the cause of this thread was an example of it lol.
  9. It's all those pathetic little minds have (including some in this thread, who may have been doing it just to show how much of an idiot they can be), without getting themselves suspended from both here and SL. Give them the safe choice though, and they'd do much worse. People can be really nasty in places where it's allowed on the web. That's where their true characters/natures are fully displayed. Here, they're stuck with a little emoji, unless they don't mind being suspended.
  10. You ought to change that to the time it takes an avatar to walk across the full length of the parcel, plus a few seconds. I agree with clivesteel's suggestion about security and booting, except that 100 seconds is way to long a time. 20 seconds as a legal minimum would be good though, provided that the device puts dialogs up and doesn't rely on local chat warnings which can easily not be seen. In fact, I'd add dialogs for that purpose as compulsory.
  11. Features generally don't interfere with the 'shared experience', because they don't cause users to see and interact with things differently. Take RLV, as an example. The fact that one avatar that I can see has forced dominance over another one that I can see, doesn't change my experience in SL one iota, irrespective of which viewer I'm using. A mirror that can only work with a 3rd party viewer, on the other hand, means that my non-mirror-viewer experience in SL will be different to the experience of a user of a mirror enabled viewer in SL. I'm open to being corrected but I imagine that's what the 'shared experience' means, and why the mirror was disallowed.
  12. I normally dislike dark themes but I actually like this one. I don't find it too dark at all. It's not be implemented very well though because of text colours. That's down to Invision, and not LL. In fact the implementation is very poor.
  13. I'm already the proud winner of 4 warning badges Actually I won more than 4 but I no longer reflect them because of what I consider to be some idiotic penalising here by some of the staff. The last one was the last straw for me, and I decided to quit SL completely. I'm just waiting for the 2 annual premiums that I have to run out, and then I'm gone. This one runs out this month and the other runs out in March. To show how idiotic some of the penalising is, 2 of the last 4 warnings I received were overturned because they weren't merited. That's half of them! One on my appeal and the other without me even asking. And I'm sure that a 3rd of them should have been overturned too. It's not the warnings and forum suspensions themselves, although they are often completely wrong, it's coupling them with suspensions from SL that's so idiotic.
  14. @Blush Bravin The laugh is for the the last sentence you wrote. It's laughing with and not at I never use it for scorn either. There are times when a small part of a post makes me smile or laugh and I want to show it, but, because it's only a small part, I don't use the laugh which could be taken the wrong way. I can do it with the small part of your post because I'm also writing the explanation of it.
  15. It has nothing to do with someone feeling abused. It is to do with some people being offensive. Laughing at someone in a scornful way is intentionally offensive, and is done with the intention of affecting the feelings of the victim. It doesn't require the 'victim' to feel abused for it to be an offensive practise. Imo, such offensive behaviour has no place in this forum. There are many places on the web where offensiveness is both accepted and welcomed, but this isn't one of them.
  16. The scornful use of the laugh is easy to spot. When you read a post that has nothing humorous in it, and someone has stuck the laugh on it, the laugh is scorn. There are very few people here who actually do that on a regular basis, but, between them, it's become quite common. What I find most disappointing is the number of people who are normally perfectly nice, who suddenly do it on a post. Presumably they've seen the scornful use of it and a post has got right up their nose, so they do it as a one-off. There aren't many of those people either, but there are a few. We all have that sort of negativity in our natures, but most of us keep it to ourselves, and don't inflict it on others - even though we'd sometimes like to
  17. You could write what you think. E.g. that the other's argument is so wrong that it isn't worth any more of your time, so you won't be replying any more - and then ignore it. That's plenty of disdain if that's what you want. People often do that here, using different words. What, imo, is out of order, and shows the person's nature/character for what it really is, is laughing scornfully in someone's face. That's what the laugh does here when used in that way.
  18. If we got something like a thumbs down, it wouldn't stop some people from being scornful. They'd still use the laugh for it, because they like to be scornful. There is no need for any emoji, or anything else, to show disdain here. A thumbs down could be very useful for disagreeing with something, but showing disdain has no place in this forum. To disdain something is to consider it to be unworthy of one's consideration. Ignoring things that are considered to be unworthy of consideration works very well, if you don't want to explain your reasoning. There is no need to shove it in people's faces without a word of explanation or reasoning. All that does is show you up for what you are, but that's what you are anyway, so discussing it isn't going to improve your nature. The uses of the word 'you' in the previous sentence does not mean everyone who reads it. But if you think I mean you, then I probably do.
  19. If I saw anyone who fits that description here, I would either tolerate them or avoid them. But there isn't anyone here who could be described that way. There are some who are very dislikeable, but none who are "terminally stupid".
  20. That's something that doesn't happen, so it would be an exception if it ever occured. In fact, it's very rare that a post here merits scorn. So rare that I can't remember ever having seen one.
  21. Maybe they had a picture of a lady's private parts printed on them
  22. Some people use the laugh as scorn. The main one has been mentioned in this thread, but other, usually nice, people sometimes use it that way. Imo, it's a despicable practise, but it isn't against the forum rules/guidelines. However, if a person 'stalked' another person, by using the laugh on every post the victim makes, or even an inordinately high number of the posts the victim makes, then, imo, it would be seen as harrassment and dealt with as such, even if the dealing with it only told the perpetrator to stop doing it.
  23. @Talligurl IT WAS YOU!! I thought your name was familiar.
×
×
  • Create New...