I've been going through old pictures

That gives us all a better idea where you're coming from blue.

You seem a bit oversensitive on the issue. What use is it to the kids?

What use is it to the kids was the question. What use is it to those who are shown them?

Bombastic bluster is the same no matter how distasteful. It exposes a sensitivity.

My first post only said I was inclined to agree with the vast majority who don't use their kids in such a way.

you'e a ******* jerk off spendi, seriously. No one including me who posts pictures of their children do it for any different reason than they carry pictures of their children in their wallets. To share with their friends because they love them and are proud of them. Posting them here is pulling them out of my virtual wallet to share with my A2K friends, as is the case with other people who post pictures of their children, spouses, pets, and things that mean something to them they wish to share with people who mean something to them. That's the thing you don't get because you don't have any friends here that are interested in sharing any of themselves with you because as previously mentioned you're a ******* ****. Sorry Msolga. So from now on, just realize I'm not talking to you and walk on by asshole. Then we're both content.

Don't feed the troll, Boss . . .

You're right. I'm putting him on ignore and I'm finished here.

No worries, shewolf.
I get it now.

You gotta get used to using these things, to make yourself 100% clear! :


I use them all the time.
Clutter my posts with them, even! Ha.
Having had similar misunderstanding with other posters in the past, where I've found myself saying: "But I didn't mean that at all!"

But seriously, no worries, OK?

Not buying into this bit of the discussion, but ..... huh?


As I've always said to fueding boys in schools. Leave your mothers outta this!

I wouldn't insult someone's mother normally but since I'm sure his is a jackal she won't know the difference.

Hmmmmmm

I think she just gave you the stink-eye, bear.

be vewy caweful...

What's a stink-eye, Rocky?
I really want to know ....

I do not see how people who don't carry pictures of their kids in their wallets or flash such pictures over the world wide web might be said to be any less proud of them or love them any less than those who do those things. And that's the implication. That somehow, by posting such pictures, which very few do, you have proved that you love your kids more than the rest of the parents on here do.

You have a very strange usage of the word "friends".

And it is totally irrelevant in regard to that how much of a ******* jerk off I am or how big a ******* **** I am. I am quite prepared to plead guilty to both allegations.

I can't stand Mr ******* Nice Guy. They are always full up to the forlock with shite.

spendi...

when at your pub of choice, one of your bar stool cronies pulls out the latest picture of his grandkids, are you this much of a dickhead?

somehow I doubt it...

of course not... in a real pub in real time he'd get the **** smacked out of him

There is a famous definition of "friend". I forget whose it is.

Someone who would suck the venom of a snake bite out of your rectum in the event of you being careless enough to have suffered such a thing.

It's never happened Rockie and I have been in a lot of pubs over a period of time long enough to satisfy me that nobody will ever indulge their ego in such a crass manner in an English pub.

I can't comment on this anymore since I've put spendi on ignore.... wouldn't be sporting.

I've been thinking about this thumbs up & down business again, since participating in this thread & also from my observation of a few other threads.

Yes, I know we've had these conversations before & everyone ends up saying: "they don't matter at all to me. It's the quality of the discussion that counts!"
If you can't stand the heat, etc ....
Sticks & stones, etc ....

But ... jeez, I've seen the "thumbing" function used (more?) recently in not exactly positive ways!

I mean: I've seen images of animals to the Beautiful Animals thread from a particular poster thumbed down constantly because (apparently?) someone doesn't like that poster.

I've seen some posters' contributions thumbed down constantly (& people commenting on the pettiness of it) no matter which thread they've posted on & what they've actually said.

Kinda pathetic, really.

Despite what many A2Kers say whenever we've discussed this, I believe that people do get offended, hurt, discouraged, turned off, etc, etc, etc ... when this sort of treatment is applied to them. And why shouldn't they? It's not exactly pleasant to be treated like that, on or off-line ...

I really wish that we could separate the 2 different functions of the "thumbing" option:

*to show appreciation (or otherwise) of a particular post or thread ..

or

* as an indication that you're not interested in following particular threads.

They are two entirely different things. And when deliberately misused by the malicious or petty to undermine a poster or a thread discussion, things can become very unpleasant & at times not exactly conducive to an interesting discussion .

If those not interested in following this thread of Bear's could simply have indicated that, without having to thumb the thread down,...well ... that could have been far preferable to what happened to the thread. Bear would not have become so angry & those who weren't interested & they wouldn't even have had to see the thread again.

I sometimes thumb down threads (like the word games, which there a zillion of & which I have absolutely no interest in) simply to make negotiating new posts a lot easier & quicker. But I know there are many who really enjoy those threads & their thread "ratings" does not indicate their level of support.

As to an indication of appreciation (or the opposite) I much prefer a more positive system where there is only a "like" option. (with no thumbing down type option). I've come across quite a few discussion sites which use this approach. This way, every post initially has a neutral "rating". If posters approve of, or appreciate a post, they tick the "like" box. So any post can receive any number of positive ratings, or no ratings at all, depending on the reception from the thread participants. At the same time this avoids the situation in which threads could be a "rated" zero, sometimes without a single comment. Very discouraging to a new A2Ker, I'd imagine.
I like the focus on the quality of the post, rather than subjective responses to posters, too.
This just seems much fairer & more positive to me.

Sorry to have gone on & on about this (if you're still reading! ) but I've been thinking about this quite a bit recently & not just in response to this thread of Bear's.
This is my two bob's worth at this point in time.
I know there will be people here who'll still disagree. That's OK. But I wanted to share my thoughts with you anyway.