RationalMadman

There's no 'don't see what they write' kind of ignore here and users actually were happy about that. You are able to see the others' posts, report them etc but you are unable to be @'d by them via the 'receivers' box and also can't be PM'd by them. 

Please click 'block user' on polytheist's profile as an immediate solution to the problem. We cannot negotiate with her, that is clear, so I am asking you to be the mature one.

I understand, was just trying to help.

Your criticism of it lacking what makes a thread lock-worthy has been taken on board and the mods, myself and the Admin and a couple others are working on it, it will probably come down to a vote via MEEP-thread in some weeks.

Just because your enemy isn't being punished immediately isn't reason to break the rules yourself, I promise you this website isn't anarchic as it was in its origin and things will be dealt with in time. It is not up to me to say how soon or how severe and the mods can't publicly state it either.

She is breaking rules. 

In case you didn't know where the rules were, I'll link you:

Do not threaten her with mod action, you will get things backfiring onto you. Report it and do not say you are. Don't ask me why, those are the rules.

LMFAO, clearly made by a clique-1 type of his own community.

Clique theory:

1. Redundant people who thought their DDO legacy would last forever and RM would be a piece of shit on their shoe to laugh at and run off the site permanently.

2. Average sheeple who may not necessarily be sheepish to a normal idea or group but are to something.

3. Freaks of nature (either severely smart or severely dumb on top of other strange traits)

4. Somewhat intelligent people who mingle between the cliques thinking they aren't in a clique but they are and they will huddle together as passionate casuals and peacemakers when the going gets tough.

I am referring to the font-size of the orange text of a Forum Title on the list, not of the font size of the Title inside the forum thread.

I am talking about the font-size.

Your take on VAT is the first time I have admired your intellect in a long time.

On the sub-forum page, when you read the titles of topics (or of subforums on the main 'Forum' page) do you find the font is too large?

Didn't suit their design.

I have a feeling a certain pyramid listens to that song just as fondly as well.

Buddy I am telling you to shut the actual fuck up. I can't threaten you with mod action because the CoC don't allow it, but I can tell you I can't threaten you. Don't bully other users like this.

If possible please create some kind of thread with the 'thread topic size' thing and ask for others' opinions. The mods or I can do it on your behalf if you want but a change like that won't happen until there's enough consensus, your other suggestions are very helpful though, thanks.

If this thread is actually about me and you are trying to help me and everyone else realise it was actually about me by your post there, tell me one thing;

How would the hammer win a dick-measuring contest against me when he's too pussy to be a dick to me straight up in the first place?

Calling me an outcast on two sites, as an insult, is hilarious. Do you think sucking up to everyone so that they approve of you makes you better than me? I was an outcast here when it was full of circle-jerking bullies and I am no longer an outcast at all, lmfao.

Also, darling hammer, why do you think I or Thett3 if you really are making this thread about him/her and not me, are going to give a scintilla of a fuck about YOU and YOUR OPINION when you just stated you don't give it about anyone else's? Think we don't feel the same to you?

Here's news for all of you: I don't care about your opinion, I care only that you shut the fuck up about it and speak to me with respect in public.

I don't use DDO anymore and couldn't give a shit about it.

I was talking about this website, not DDO. DDO is hosted in the US.

I am not making anyone illiterate.

DAC doesn't sound as good as DA? DarC looks AND sounds better than both.

Acronyms or shortened nickname? Who the fuck are you to come here and tell us about how to call our website?

You think Google is wrong to have goo.gl as its shortened name? You think that when people call Democrats Dems, even those who support the party, that they need to call them Ds? xD

DA? Bitch, please! It's DarC and you know it, <3.

This website is hosted in the UK and run by a Russian Admin. This is not America.

you can't change colours but they are actually changed, Round 1 is Yellow every time, Round 2 is light-green etc.

Your colour-of-Round suggestion... Is it the colour that's the issue? That is done here with different colours.

I was referring to the forum post section etc being different in methods and layout to reach and view it, compared with DDO.

Would split it up and post there for long term record that can be looked back at much later on no matter what except for the first, which I proved is a suggestion that already works just different to DDO which is important as it would be intellectual property theft to copy all of DDO's layout. That variation is a good thing.

Thanks for this, I'll make sure the admin is alerted to the improvement ideas. In future please go to the pinned thread called 'Platform Development' to suggest ideas like this.

This advice, coming straight from the lowest ranked on DebateArt. The one the only, Type1.

Oh my god, do you know that I support public health insurance? Wtf are you saying?

So people compete to invent new surgical techniques and medicine as well as there never being a flat out 'right way' to treat most cases. Always 2-3 ways that the person should have competing methods to select from. Also, 'second opinion' won't really mean a damn thing in a system where the second opinion comes from a doctor from the same school of thought as the first one.

Why the hell do you think that is a retort to what I said? Progressives support planning economies, we also support letting them be free within reason.

I don't get it? Do you not see that their model rules out private healthcare? I am saying to have public healthcare via public insurance and let it remain private overall in competition of the hospitals etc.

That is economically idiotic, so to answer you no I don't support that and yes I have been proven wrong and can't comprehend how such a stupid system is in place that is probably why no medical procedures have been revolutionised in those nations since they employed that. You need to integrate private with public and let there be competition still.

Okay go into the other nordic nations please.

Interesting loophole. So they fund the things the insurance would cover so that you don't need insurance if you're particularly poor. Fine, that's a loophole that does the same thing backwards. The healthcare is still run by corporations competing, prove me wrong on that please.

The UK does have private healthcare, it also have public healthcare. The UK doesn't have public insurance for healthcare because it has public healthcare.

The Nordic model has the inverse. Understand?

Honestly I am not going to spoonfeed you when you are posting youtube videos of Hillary explicitly saying she opposes gay marriage because she feels marriage is about religion and religions oppose gays (she's not wrong, they do, what happened was people began to change their religions as society progressed so it wasn't Hillary being mean to gays) and instead she asserted that civil unions should have near-equivalent rights to straight people (except perhaps adoption which back then they thought would screw up the children, not her fault; just lack of scientific research put into it) and wanted gays to be completely entitled to have such civil unions in place of marriage.

You need proof when your own proof is proof of my point. Please look more into the whole 'Hillary flip-flopped on gay marriage' thing and see it's only the 'marriage' part she changed over time on, as well as gay adoption because she cared about children and worried it screws them up psychologically if they're not raised by a mother and father (which is linked to why she supported abortion and didn't flip-flop on that for children who will otherwise be raised by unloving people in a broken foster-home or something etc.). Hillary actually hasn't changed her mind on most of her core beliefs at all, she was simply willing to evolve with the times.

The quiz they answered forced them to also be against private healthcare in their answer if they were against private education and private social care. Therefore the amount is inflated in terms of those who are actually against private healthcare. Also, many would interpret it as saying 'all or nothing no public healthcare or public-provided insurance at all' as the ultimatum when answering.

Interesting that it says 'and' meaning if they are against social care or education being privatised, that quiz would have them being against private healthcare as well. You also need to realise how ridiculous that quiz is at defying what I said as being true. You said the Nordic Model, even if your quiz proves the majority are against it, the model you are advocating for has private healthcare with public insurance.

The 'and' will be taken as 'or' to most doing the quiz.

Name the year(s) you think she was against gay marriage and I will show you how vehemently she supported civil unions and even opposed her husband on 'don't ask don't tell', wanting the military to say 'go ahead say you're gay' basically.

The Nordic Model is public insurance for the poor.

It is Universal because the Insurance is. It is not public healthcare that owns the hospitals and run them. The NHS of UK is not the norm in Europe. Read the source.

Let's say you're totally correct on her and gay marriage (you're not, she only changed on the 'marriage' part, I will explain about civil unions in just a moment), even if that were true you are experiencing confirmation bias. You are assuming she didn't really change her mind on it and that she only pretended to, to gain political power. That assumption is why you refuse to consider the complete alternative even in your extreme mind-change scenario, which is that she really did change her mind that much.

It is also very, very important to understand that Bernie has been all-talk whereas Hillary was involved with many real operations and actions that helped Americans and the world as a whole in ways you can't fathom. What happened was that Bush and his father (as well as Reagan) fucked up the Middle East sandwiching her husband and later leaving to Obama the completely shit situation of constantly having to beg the Middle Eastern and Northeast African allies-turned-enemies to forgive them and help the Democratic agenda of world peace proceed again. Despite this brutal backfoot, she outshone her husband while being less powerful (Sec. of State is inferior to the President obviously, in rank) and as Obama's Sec. of State brutally made Iran become friendly and all these other things that Trump has uprooted and ruined near-permanently amongst many other alliances he's torn and rivalries he's exploded (North Korea will NEVER EVER want peace with the US ever again as well as Iran, this is set in stone now thanks to Trump and what he did with Israel's embassy among other things).

Bernie has indeed been more consistent in the shit he blabbered from his mouth, just like even I can be typing away here on a debating website but Mrs. Clinton DID THINGS, severely amazing and consistent things again and again from her start in politics to now that show not only that she is good at what she does but she does what's good for most, no matter how many stances she may wish-wash on in her words.

She was never against gay rights or that stuff. She saw marriage as pointless for gay people to be allowed as it's solely religious and the religions that were mainstream in the US all considered homosexuality to be immoral and against their values. So, she was always for civil unions being the alternative legal arrangement and Trump's crew twisted her words and such (as did Bernie's) to make her seem much harsher on gays than she was back in that time where indeed things were different, regarding homosexuals.

Wrong. This is confirmation bias. You assume that it isn't that the places and families+friends of people who operated weren't obviously much less anti-trans in the first place such that the percentage of trans with operations isn't far more those who aren't bullied for it in spite of the operation due to the better support-net than the percentage of trans people who have transphobic people surrounding them who are already too ashamed and scared to go for the operation and on top of that have a lot of other shit to deal with.

The assumption that the trans people who operate are less suicidal due to that is complete and utter confirmation bias at work.