There’s got to be easier ways…
the modlogs show that we do take action, but only when justified. Just because you feel something is justified, that doesn’t mean you’re right.
A report doesn’t mean you’ll get what you want. Moderators will review the report, and see if it has merit.
Insulting us is the best way to make us do our job /s
I understood from the outset. Have a great day!
Ah yeah. Please explain how that is a personal attack. They surmised that something must be affecting your taste buds if you find that the two drinks taste the same. That would be an accurate summation if they feel the two taste very dissimilar.
I didn’t get personal. Sorry if you took it personally.
I actually agree with Treczoks about them not tasting remotely the same.
My wife gets the extra creamy oat milk. I can easily tell it’s not regular milk, and it’s just not for me. I honestly tried to like it.
Compelling speech is a violation of the first amendment.
Yeah, I wish they could force it, but they can’t. They might be able to come to an agreement between both parties that if the defendant did XYZ, the plaintiff would reduce damages by X amount.
I don’t see that happening, though.
It’s amazing what people can turn into an insult.
I live in a “flyover state”. What does that say about me?
I mean, surely it means something, or you said it for no reason.
Please, psychoanalyze me based on where I live.
It appears they edited the title a number of times. First title was “Israel-Hamas war: How an aid convoy in Gaza became Israel’s target”
Just checked. it does match. They are using the new title. AP changed the title post-publishing, but failed to change the header title.
Our rules are clear. We remove all content that is reported if it breaks our rules. That means I’ve removed some comments by you, as well as ones against you. Just because you would rather we kept things you agree with up, that doesn’t mean we are performing “censorship to serve an agenda”
As a mod at [email protected] , I appreciate the positive call-out!
Nope. You did great. Our rules state that a post must contain a link to an article. Keeping the video as primary, and adding a link as the comment suffices. We usually don’t give the warning, but I felt that your post added good context for the news surrounding the breaking news.
Usually, this would be deleted for not being a news article.
OP, please link to the link below, and I’ll let it stay.
OK. You’re both behaving like kids. Stop it, please, or I will be forced to enforce the rules on this whole flame war, which will result in 3 day bans for both of you. I really don’t want that.
FYI: when you both go this far down the rabbit hole, you both lost.
OK. You’re both behaving like kids. Stop it, please, or I will be forced to enforce the rules on this whole flame war, which will result in 3 day bans for both of you. I really don’t want that.
FYI: when you both go this far down the rabbit hole, you both lost.
Most times, precedent is set by what the court decides NOT to review. When they say nothing, they are saying “the lower court has it right”. This is standard practice.
There’s zero tradition for a former president being indicted numerous times for almost a hundred crimes. There’s no measuring stick for this.
Locking this down.
Too many heated comments