Slashdot Mirror
The Guardian Publishes Comment Abuse Stats, Invites Debate On Moderation (theguardian.com)
AmiMoJo writes: British newspaper The Guardian has published some stats on its popular comment sections attached to each story. So far the Guardian's site has received 70 million comments, of which around 2% were removed for violation of community standards. Articles written by women tended to get the most blocked comments, especially if they were in male-writer dominated sections like sports and technology, while fashion was one of the few areas where men got more abuse. Further down the article the reader is invited to moderate some sample comments and see how their actions compared to those of the paper's staff. You can leave suggestions for improvement here.
should concentrate on their own credibility first, then worry bout their posters.
C|N>K
The same Guardian that has "quality journalism" on the top of the site,
yet makes quality articles of mental psychosis such as manspreading,
and even supported the bullying and defamation of a Rosetta scientist because of a shirt he wore?
Why is such a site even posted on slashdot? Might as well post GAWKER articles.
Have moved away from Slashdot-style semi-anonymous posts (login required, but real name not required) in favor of requiring Facebook or Linkedin accounts. The FB-assisted comment sections are almost always dull, predictable, and sparsely populated. A real live forum is where the action is. So what if it requires a gardener to pull the weeds; they can hire interns with freshly minted university degrees who are willing and able to moderate posts, as long as it comes with a chance to do some reporting work.
... immediately everyone flames them.
I have given up on commenting there because I know how they rate their 'community standards'
It was an article on the flood of millions of migrants into Europe and I was asking if it is wise to allow so many of those who have no intention of integrate into the European culture ... and my comment was nuked
There was no cussing
There was no degrading of any specific race
There was not even any mention of religion
I was only commenting on the wisdom of allowing so many of those who had shown to not interested of integration --- and for that, I somehow has violated their 'community standard'
As I said, I've given up commenting there --- them European liberals simply cannot tolerate anyone questioning what they do
Totally useless !
Captcha: despair
What they failed to do was publish articles written by one gender/race under the alias of the opposing gender/race, serving it to part of the internet and seeing if there is a difference in the number of negative responses. They also didn't track the geographic region of the originating blocked posts. No conclusions can be taken from these numbers besides, "some people on the internet are assholes" which we already knew for a certainty thanks to the youtube comment sections.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
What's with the "community"? There are no "community" standards — the removed messages were deemed offensive by a handful of moderators. Moderators prone to keeping some posts more equal than others and susceptible to manipulation by evil regimes.
Calling them "community" is redefining terms...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Or at least... a Slashcode-like commenting, moderation, and meta-moderation system.
For all we complain about it here, and for all the trolling that occurs, the Slashdot moderation system seems to have passed the test of time reasonably enough.
Perhaps it's a little like that infamous definition of Democracy: It's the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
People who hold views that are contrary to the majority are targets for abuse. Moderation promotes groupthink. Take Slashdot for example.
You don't understand Slashdot's moderation method? And no one is blocked - ever. browse at a lower mod level, and accept that not everyone will agree with you.
You might even be exhibiting a little bit of Guardianesque ideas, in that you don't seem to want anyone to disagree with you.
We've had a number of posters here lately that are pissed that someone replies, and disagrees with them. Life just doesn't work that way, and Slashdot has come up with the best way to exist with the tragedy of the commons ever.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The more we're compared to one other, the less anyone will ever be happy. For a site where most readers understand that pitting minorities vs. whites or middle class vs. poor is how the wealthy elites keep the unwashed masses distracted from their exploits, Slashdot sure seems determined to futher all of this gender-based fomentation.
"If there was a gay Afro-Puertorican Linux distribution, I'd give it a try" ~lucm
It's true that Slashdot doesn't delete posts (or very few of them, anyway), but there is a fair amount of groupthink here, which is greatly exacerbated by moderators eager to promote those posts they agree with and bury the ones they don't - even the ones that are reasonably well thought out.
This is not the site I'd go to for a "cross section" of thought on topics such as women in tech, immigration and tech, copyright enforcement, digital surveillance by the government, new products from Microsoft and Sony, TPP and trade deals, digital rights management. Even if someone tried to post a contrarian opinion, the only posts that would be visible to the casual visitor would be the (many) blistering "refutations" of what they had to say.
I don't agree. And please don't say "Guardianesque" again, ever.
Ohhh, okay.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It looks like The Guardian just got a first-hand lesson on the flaws of "diversity". When allow racism and sexism to dictate your hiring policy, you'll inevitably get people who wouldn't have been hired on their merit alone.
I wonder how much of the "abuse" was of the "you suck" variety. Maybe The Guardian needs to ask the UN to censor their critics as well.
Same experience on Scientific American. No violation of their own stated policies. Not even mentioned global warming.
Comment deleted.
I complained and their reply was that I lost my "privilege" to post.
I cancelled the renewal of my subscription and unsubscribed from any of their mailing lists.
Absolutely disgraceful.
Your notion of civil discourse runs the gamut from A to A.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Slashdot allows you to read at -1, so there's a way around its moderation. What you write certainly applies to sites like the Guardian, but it cannot be said to apply to Slashdot to the same degree at all.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Unlike The Guardian, Slashdot doesn't answer to political grievance groups (and has only removed one thing for Scientology).
I'm not sure that this is debate as much as it is a justification.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Since you can turn off all moderation filtering (which I do, the site is quite boring if you read at higher mod levels), it's up to you as the reader. That seems to me to be the best approach. In other words, short of a few rather abusive posters (like APK when he goes off his meds), moderation only exists if you, the reader, decides it does.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And the one poster who frequently has his posts outright removed from Slashdot appears, to demonstrate that there is a level of insane trolling that not even the /. editors will tolerate.
Do you ever actually post anywhere else?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
| bigoted
I tend to find in a lot of "communities" that this is used not simply mean those who come along and say something like "let kill and mutilate all the niknaks because of some big lie or misrepresented fact" or generally pointless meaningful things. People see it as a right to impose speech restrictions to impose their own morality and beliefs on others.
| But xenophobia, racism, sexism and homophobia were all seen regularly. Take for example, some of the comments left below an article on the mass drownings of migrant men, women and children in the Mediterranean: “These people contribute nothing to the countries they enter”; “The more corpses floating in the sea, the better”; “LET THEM ALL DROWN!”
I thought I might be paranoid but the Guardian proves me right further on in the article. Lets take a look at what they consider bigoted and vile:
* “These people contribute nothing to the countries they enter”
This should not be moderated and in fact opens healthy debate on that particular subject. If there's anything wrong with it it is that is is not well articulated. Obviously they don't literally contribute nothing but they might not make a net contribution or might not contribute enough.
* “The more corpses floating in the sea, the better”
Well this one doesn't add a great deal and is somewhat absurd so could be prune worthy if going for high quality comments. Otherwise it's nothing more than an way of saying "I really, really, really do not care." and that's a problem because the Guardian more than anything wants people to care. You can't have examples of people not caring going unpunished. All you have here is an article saying "YOU MUST CARE ABOUT THIS SO SO MUCH" and people responding with "Frankly, I couldn't give a damn." What you really have here is a sample of a comment that doesn't support the article. The comment is being removed because it's not in line with what the article wants you to think, feel, etc. I wonder if they did a poll on "do you support this article" if they would moderate the votes saying no for being bigoted.
* “LET THEM ALL DROWN!”
This is borderline. All it's saying is, "I'm apathetic." like the previous. It's very similar to the previous but less absurd. It's not really a serious discussion type comment so it could be pruned for that reason. It's harsh as hell but it's not saying the same as "Lets drown them." although the Guardian would no doubt want you to think that way. Although the Guardian would also like you to think that they are being forced onto boats there's no reason to believe that the sheer majority of them are making a wilful decision to try to come here.
Let analysis their conclusions:
* articles written by women attract more abuse and dismissive trolling than those written by men, regardless of what the article is about.
I've almost never paid attention to the author of a news story. Once in a blue moon I might check or accidentally notice. If I'm representative of the common case then it might be because of what or how women right. I have no doubt this comment on the guardian would have me branded as a bigot and gagged accordingly. I find this article of theirs provocative so perhaps there's a higher chance it's written by a woman? It looks like it's half and half so not far off the mark there. I'd like to see what happens if they don't show the reporter's name.
Not one of these comments is actually bigoted in any sense that is meaningful. At best they simply aren't saying enough. Here's what I think and that's all, not why. Removing them for that is fine. Removing them because if you don't agree with the article you must be bigoted then you have a problem of the opinion you are writing about becoming a delusion.
There is also a possibility that moderators are spending more effort on articles written by members of groups they deem "vulnerable". Other possibilitie
It's not about the gender of the author, it's about the agenda of the author. Regardless, most flamebait/troll posts are aimed at other comments anyway - at least that's apparent in watching this play out in other papers' comment areas. Also, the straight reporting or analysis vs. op-ed will make a huge difference.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
[...] but there is a fair amount of groupthink here, [...]
It's less of a problem than many people who are part of the groupthink clusters seem to think. My observation is that with a few exceptions, any comment which falls into groupthink territory tends to have its "+1, Agree" upvotes and "-1, Disagree" downvotes balanced out. Such comments never get to either -1 or +5.
It's rare that all groupthink clusters align on Slashdot to the point where a non-troll comment gets moderated to -1. I think the only time it's ever happened to me was when I advocated Deep Space 9.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
So, for example, they cite that 8 or their 10 most "abused" contributors were women (4 white, 4 not). But since the newspaper has a great deal of coverage of "women's" issues including a lot of highly opinionated articles about feminism -- but no corresponding articles, or sections, concerning men's issues their coverage is neither balanced, nor able to show how much abuse their "men's" writers would get, since they don't have any.
They also counted all "moderated" comments (ones that do not meet their community standards) as being abusive and they assume that the abuse is directed against the author. However, they remove comments that are off-topic and ones that make personal comments about other commentators. So a comment that was removed because it insulted a commentator who was attacking the article (i.e. the insulter was supporting the author), would be counted as abuse against that author. They do not give reasons for removing comments and only have the single classification.
Finally, The Guardian admits that it does not moderate either consistently: applying different levels of rigor depending on the topic, nor does it moderate all articles to the same extent. It also does not open all it's articles up to comments.
In all, while their analysis does point to there being online abuse - they reckon they delete 2% of articles, from the 70 million submitted so far, the results are patchy, inconsistent and cherry-picked. It would never pass a peer review and seems to have been published more to push the newspaper's own agenda, rather than as an authoritative work to highlight a problem (they don't say if the level of "abuse" is rising or falling since they started in 1999).
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
And APK's other trick, to pose as his own defender. Do you think we're all idiots?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Those comments that they showcased in the article were in many cases perfectly legitimate debate.
The comment was:
“A 12-year-old boy, out at night, waving a BB gun? What sort of parent allows that? What happened is the product of a fucked up
society/community/culture/upbringing. I'm sorry to say, but often black people are their own worst enemies.”
You answered allow. We thought differently.
This was removed for racism (“black people are their own worst enemy”; “fucked up community/culture” etc).
Yeah, nice going Guardian. Don't allow a healthy discussion on black culture, just silence any controversial or unpopular opinions. Slashdot may have its groupthink, but comments are almost never deleted. A certain rarity on the net in this day and age of 'safe spaces'.
The only comment I would have deleted was the very last one, "“stupid ugly woman writes stupid ugly steaming pile of dog-shite”, because it was just an insult without saying anything to back it up.
Shut up, APK
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If you get a combination of +1s and -1s on the same comment on a contentious topic, you can reasonably infer what happened.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Possibly the best part is that they consider "whataboutery" to be abuse. So if a female author writes an article about the terrible incidence of suicide among young women, and how they need to be given special assistance, and a commenter says "uh ... men commit suicide about three times as often as women - why aren't you concerned about them?", that's classified as abuse.
And APK's other trick, to pose as his own defender. Do you think we're all idiots?
And yet another of his tricks - hijacking my account to post this:
When has APK's posts ever been removed from slashdot?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Articles written by women tended to get the most blocked comments, especially if they were in male-writer dominated sections like sports and technology, while fashion was one of the few areas where men got more abuse.
How did the articles on sports/technology fashion fare?
Why are they censoring comments? That's just comments for chrissake! Comments reflect people's opinion, all people, and ensures the reader to get a fair sample of what people think. So the Guardian may censor that comment, that I would have seen as interesting, and may keep this one that I may feel too politically-correct. It's a website, keep all comments! Add a "comment flagged but you may read it here at your own risk" button, or do a slashdot-like moderation (for newbies, slashdot keeps all comments, yes).
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Where'd you post that in this article before the date of your post now? You didn't. I checked your post history today https://slashdot.org/~goose-in... You panicked and are now caught sockpuppeting MightyMartian after apk you out a fool https://news.slashdot.org/comm... and you do what he says trolls do using sockpuppets https://news.slashdot.org/comm... You have proven apk right about what goes on here. You're busted MightyMartian/goose incarnated (or whatever many sockpuppet names you use).
You missed the sarcasm in "And yet another one of his tricks - hijacking my account"? So, by me challenging MightMartian's assertion (basically defending APK), you feel I *am* him? Do you even read?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
If you believe in punishing criminals like those who use ransomware to blackmail users, you'll be constantly told what a fool you are, and probably be modded down as flamebait.
Don't buy it. As full of gimps as slashdot is, I don't think there's a conspiracy in favour of ransomware operators. I think that's a pile of bullshit tbh.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Which comment would you block? Play the moderator role and take our quiz to see how your decisions compare to those of Guardian moderators
In an opinion piece about what makes one a "feminazi": “Funny how so many journalists are female, and how many are feminists! A disproportionate number pollute journalism. Jusrt shows that men DO tend to do 'harder' jobs than keyboard bashing, while the technology that men designed and built is used to provide these harpies with a medium from which to spout their biased, sexist, hateful misandry.” CENSORED. This comment serves only to derail the conversation, and diminish the (female) writer. In tone and content it adds nothing of value to the conversation. Plus it is sexist, which our guidelines make clear won’t be tolerated.
In a fashion piece: "So blue jeans are 'finally back'? This might be shocking for sheltered London-centric Guardian types but out in the real world, people have been wearing blue jeans quite happily for years." ALLOWED. This is a mild case of dismissive trolling (no, this isn't news: it is a fashion piece, about fashion trends) but it was not blocked because although dismissive, it is more a criticism of the article than the author.
In an article about protests over the death of Eric Garner: “A 12-year-old boy, out at night, waving a BB gun? What sort of parent allows that? What happened is the product of a fucked up society/community/culture/upbringing. I'm sorry to say, but often black people are their own worst enemies.” CENSORED. This was removed for racism (“black people are their own worst enemy”; “fucked up community/culture” etc).
In an opinion piece about antisemitic conspiracy theories "I don’t think that pointing out the disproportional political influence Jews have in most western societies can be called a conspiracy. But branding people that point it out and labelling them anti-Semitic seems to me part of a conspiracy." CENSORED. This was removed for antisemitism: claiming Jewish people have disproportional influence in politics is an antisemitic trope with a long history. The comment also seems to suggest antisemtism doesn't really exist other than as a way to silence people.
In an article about Hillary Clinton and female voters: “THERE IS NO GENDER PAY GAP! Just more feminist crap portraying women as victims and men as perpetrators. Even worse is the lie we live in a rape culture with one in five women raped over a lifetime. Sure if you re-define what constitutes a rape including a drunk girl gives consent but regrets it next day.” CENSORED. This is a classic case of “whataboutery” and – specifically – “What about the men?”. In tone and content it adds nothing of value, and derails the conversation. Plus it is sexist, which our guidelines make clear won’t be tolerated.
In an article about Jose Mourinho and Manchester United: “The Guardian, once a standard bearer of quality journalism now contains football journalists so in love with Mourinho it makes me sad. This is just the latest in an incredible long campaign for the despicable one to join the club of Matt Busby and Jimmy Murphy. I am astonished that the editor of the paper allows this dross to be published. You are a disgrace to the profession.” CENSORED. This was deleted because it is both author abuse and goes beyond reasonable criticism of the piece to smear both the Guardian and the journalist.
In an opinion piece about the Oscars and LGBT people: “Oh dear. Can I award you the Oscar for the clunkiest metaphor in a wrong-headed Oscar-themed click-bait article?” ALLOWED. This is a mild case of author abuse and dismissive trolling. It was not blocked because it is more criticism of the article than the author. “Dismissive trolling” is usually blocked – comments like “Calm down, dear” or “On your hobby horse again, I see” which mock or otherwise dismiss the author or
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
"The Guardian Publishes Comment Abuse Stats, Invites Debate On Moderation" - by disabling commenting on the article in the link. I'm a regular on the Grauniad's website, and their censoring of comments has become ridiculous. I've have comments removed because I highlighted an author's hypocrisy, use of logical fallacies and general intellectual dishonesty.
I recently gave up visiting the Guardian website after being an avid reader since my student days in early 80s. The reason for this was an increase in click-bait articles combined with heavy handed and capricious moderators in the comments section.
My comment that people take screenshots of their Guardian comments and tweet them with the hashtag "#censoredbycif" was itself removed by the Guardian's moderators.
http://www.chadfield.com/2015/...
Guardianesque guardianesque GUARDIANESQUE GuArDiAnEsQuE gUaRdIaNeSqUe GUAAAAAAAARDIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAANEEESQE!!!!11!!1
Abuse and blocking are not the same things. Take your comment for example. You're suggesting that someone needs to browse at a lower than default moderation level. So someone needs to go out of their way to see comments that don't conform to the standard group think, and that can be an "abuse" of the moderation system to hide dissenting views.
Slashdot moderation is like democracy. The worst form of government except for all the others. It's not broken (you can see alternate views quite frequently), it's not perfect (look at any AGW or nuclear power story to only see one side of the comments by default), but I'll be dammed if I've ever seen a better system.
Slashdot moderation is like democracy. The worst form of government except for all the others. It's not broken (you can see alternate views quite frequently), it's not perfect (look at any AGW or nuclear power story to only see one side of the comments by default), but I'll be dammed if I've ever seen a better system.
Having been around the intertoobz for a long time, I've seen that slashdot has avoided the tragedy of the commons - and that is incredible in itself. The world is filled with all manner of people, some great, some who just want to watch the world burn (why oh why did one of the most insightful statements in the universe have to come from a Batman movie?)
But now we might have some 11 year old with an attitude on the same forum as a Nobel laureate. On the exact same footing. And over the years, in usenet groups and other places, I've seen that almost invariably, the 11 year old with the attitude wins. The Nobel laureate goes away.
The best example I have.
I've seen it happen in one group, a rec.radio.amateur.policy group, where a group of nuts with severe psycho-sexual problems utterly destroyed the group. One of the kooks ended up flooding the group with hundreds of "with the punce gotchya" (I have no idea) posts every day.
Well meaning people will try to correct that problem. So a moderated usenet group was formed for Amateur radio. But the moderation was so heavy handed that people just stopped posting at all. The kooks were gone, along with everyone else. Then in an effort to generate some traffic, summary links to blogs were added. Turns out to not be popular, but if you try to complain, it will get blocked, because believe it or not, complaints about the group are not allowed on the group.
By the way, they really cleaned up Dodge. Too bad it's a ghost town, with no active users.
This is what awaits people who try to make disagreement go away by blocking it. First some "I agree" posts, then nothing. Then no one reading. Congratulations folks, you won.
And that's the magic of Slashdot. It has managed to keep vibrant discussion alive without squashing trolls and flamers. Some folks will complain of course, there are people who don't like others disagreeing with them, and get really pissed if someone mods them down. And I've even done that on a few occasions, getting marked as flamebait for posting a link or somesuch. But all that means is someone with mod points disagrees with me - so be it.
It's not fashionable to say anything positive about Slashdot, but their moderation system has nailed it.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I'm doing more than just suggesting, my friend.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Thus proving your own ignorance and prejudice. There was nothing stupid about the comment to which you replied. It was accurate and made a salient point.
A decade or so ago, I would have recommended that The Guardian use meta-moderation. It seemed like such a panacea to have people of good will separate the wheat from the chafe. But meta-moderation (rather like democracy, now that I think about it) is only as good as the intellectual honesty of the people involved. Unfortunately, intellectual honesty seems to get sold pretty cheap. Instead, people are more interested in moderating to drive the outcome, rather than promote healthy debate. It's a little sad, actually, but I think the trend is going to have to be paid, professional moderators, ideally with some level of independence from the underlying news publication -- perhaps under the Ombudsman or OpEd model.
I'll get modded down now, for going 'I agree' but..
The moderation system on Slashdot is indeed excellent. It's not perfect, it can be gamed, but generally it's a community led flexible and effective system that anybody can easily ignore through a change in their settings.
Even the trolls get modded up if they're accidentally insightful or funny.
Then again, I've modded 'troll' a comment on another story because an anonymous poster basically posted, "It's all the fault of [racial group]" with no justification, no relevance and no value. The Guardian would support me, but they'd block it entirely and they'd also block a post that added, "..because [reason], as described [reference]" whereas on Slashdot that will be evaluated and considered as a potentially interesting contribution, whether it's a popular or politically acceptable viewpoint or not.
Slashdot moderation and metamoderation rocks. It's single-handedly kept the site alive by allowing continued interesting discussion, and that's the real draw of the site.
Whoosh!
Did you actually take the "test" to see what you would block vs what they blocked? They blocked things that were critical of anything, including a comment talking about how the Guardian has really gone downhill in their sports reporting as they seem to like some player so much who is just ok. Their idea of things that need to be blocked are so far skewed, that they could easily be talking about how everywhere should be a safe space.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
You do realize that when you go off the handle like this, it just proves his point, right?
He said nothing negative about hosts file usage, or your software, he merely pointed out that you have a tendency to be rather abusive, which you have to admit is rather true of your posting history. If you have issues with what he said, perhaps you should look deep down and reconsider the path of your life.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I liked DS9, but Voyager....
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
So, according to you, every one of those people supports YOU, not just using hosts files, but you personally. That is not what I read out of any of those quotes, not a single one supported you in your relentless harassment campaign against all detractors. Abusive is the harassment, the posting repeatedly on every single thing someone posts, the constant offtopic trolling of anyone who dares to mention a flaw in your grand design. That is harassment and abuse, not anything any of us has said against you.
My patented "days later"? What kind of crack are you on, and where can I get it? I read the story "days later" because I don't read on the weekend, which you already knew.
Funny that you feel the need to bring another comment of mine into the conversation, now who is the stalking troll, who is being abusive? No, I am not a weasel, no I don't have problems finding women, and no I am not abusive. What I lack is time, as I spend most of it raising two kids.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
So, not a single quote that supports YOU, just a bunch of quotes supporting the use of hosts files, or your host file solution. Just as I said, thank you for proving me right.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
You really have problems reading don't you? Being a single father means time commitments. I don't have the time to go out and find women, or hang out in bars, or go out on dates. That is part of being a single parent, which you would know if you ever even had kids. Not all of us have the free time to troll Slashdot day and night like you do, some of us sacrifice our time for other's benefit.
I have no problems with women, I have problems with time. But you wouldn't know about any of that, as you weren't even married ever, were you?
You try to use things I say against me like I will somehow care about these things, what you don't seem to get is that you will never get under my skin with these things. If they were really so important to me, I wouldn't be posting them on the Internet.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Um, try learning English some time, I can't make anything out of this word salad you have posted.
You are still hilarious though, tilting against those windmills as always. Keep up the good work Don Quixote.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Keep it up troll, you are just making more of a fool out of yourself.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Impressive, so I trolled YOU all day Friday while I was in bed sick?
I'm not the butthurt one, you still are posting the same refuted arguments over and over like you are making some kind of point, it is HILARIOUS.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
More efforts to justify the trust we should all have in your software, yet you are afraid of your code getting "stolen" so won't publish it. Perhaps you should worry more about getting back on your meds, it appears they have stopped being effective again.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?