lol

Not only has washoe been making empty posts for his post count (there is an actual thread for that BTW), but he has been linking videos that he has not even watched himself self and misrepresenting the video content in his posts.

Honestly I don't remember ever having seen him post anything that added to the discussion, and he regularly goes on multi-post nonsensical tangents.

Please if Washoe is banned for this than Trolley must go also . Monterey would be borderline

Trolly and Monteroy almost never post videos.

OK, so when I said that we don't do recaps for banned people when they returned, I wasn't just referring to me personally. So I deleted those posts along with the off topic derail that followed.

Please refrain from assessing other posters beliefs or posting in the mod thread. If you believe a poster made a post that violates the rules and requires a mod to take a look at it, pls report it.

Thanks

Ah yes, another weird new rule about what you can't talk about, how shocking. A quick recap is totally innocuous. Relax.

I mentioned Washoe here because I had already reported the latest unwatched video post with no response, and also because he made several no content in this thread. Are both of those kinds of things going to be permitted?

washoe is pretty harmless. I put him in the comic relief category.

Hard to improve on Rococo's assessment:

I always assumed the future would consist of a high ratio of washoes with growing up around tech. We need to start accelerating the process if getting robots to do our daily activities. We really can't even functionally drive anymore.

If you feel the need to recap the last 30 days of posting for a banned poster, by all means pm him. Or put it in the low content thread. But this thread isnt the place to answer questions like "what happened to cuepee", or have multiple posters share their opinions on that topic.

washoe is a case study in how extremism can begin to take root in people who are adrift in the world and credulous. He seems like a different person than when he first started posting in the forum.

But even if he continues on this path, I agree that he is highly likely to be harmless.

When he's actively posting disinformation without even realizing it, I don't consider that harmless.

Oh absolutely, a bit of light hearted banter about a pretty significant forum moment must be silenced immediately from this thread. It is the ~niceness era~ after all.

Washoe is at least posting in good faith, which puts him in the top 25 percentile of posters here. Obviously his COVID takes are dangerous and irresponsible, but the mods have been okay with that sort of thing for a while now.

I posted a video of the tucker monolog that possibly lead to tuckers departure from fox. it was implied itt earlier that this was the reason for his departure so I looked into it and after watching the said video for one min I could confirm that the content was indeed some heavy duty material for which he might have gotten terminated and so I posted it. what's the problem? the problem is that chillrob was not following the discussion or completely misread this hand. (and it wouldn't be the first time) I watched the video then in full and let it stand (I could have deleted it without the 30 edit window) this was no disinformation it was adding to long winded speculations about the departure of Tucker from fox. so thanks, but no thanks, chillrob this wasn't adding any positive or negative feedback to this issue. it was completely senseless. next time you should maybe look into other ways of attributing to a discussion such as adding information or thinking about you post bc you created a lot of smoke when there was no fire.

I posted a possible explanation for tucker Carson's departure.

bc

A) everyone was looking for a reason

and

B) I wanted answers

so in my word I was attributing to a thread in good faith.

and in chillrob world I'm posting dangerous disinformation.

alrighty then. lol

exactly


covid is indeed a delicate topic and it's indeed challenging to balance what should or can be said. if the mods wouldn't be fine with anything I'm the last who wouldn't listen.

All of his crazy stuff gets shot down right away.

it was not unwatched, and it was no disinformation. all of your accusations are completely unfounded.

this is the video that aired 5 days prior to his departure. (it was implied itt that he made a video around this time with a monolog, which got him in trouble. and if you watched it you would know why and when it aired. something lead to him parting with fox and this might be why. did you offer an explanation? no but I did, and it might be the answer to the riddle. fwiw I did watch in full, having fully considered it it was worth of a post, and let it stand because I regarded it as useful.

What in the world are you talking about? You posted a video in which you claimed that Tucker Carlson was attacking Fox. In fact, Carlson was attacking other media outlets in the video and comparing those media outlets unfavorably to Fox.

When multiple people pointed out that your characterization of the video was wildly inaccurate and questioned whether you had even watched the video, your response was:

and

oh I see.. now i see why you and chillrob misunderstood me and I wished I could delete some words or filled you in more.

the attack of his employer or not is irrelevant at this point. the message is whats inportant and the date of the video and I was questioning that and not who he attacked. did other fox news anchors say stuff like that and what he says after min 1:00 or did he now overstep a line? all highly controversial topics and I wonder if he took it too far and that's why or whatnot.

No one misunderstood you. You watched just the first minute of a video, totally misunderstood what was in the video, and posted it along with your disinformation that the video showed Tucker Carlson attacking Fox News, which was the opposite of what happened in the video.

You have also had other incidents in the past where you posted videos you had clearly not watched in full.

And, of course, you spammed this thread because you didn't like the number of your post count. ��

OK. Going forward, don't post videos if you haven't watched the whole thing. And you need to provide a quick synopsis of the video's theme and your opinion on that theme. Just posting a video without knowing what is in it and providing an incomplete or incorrect summary does a disservice to the other members as they need a way to determine if they want to spend the time to watch the video. If you don't think a video is worth you spending the time to watch it all, then don't post it.

Thanks.

and then I watched the whole thing and corrected myself. and?

summary/
recap:

poster x post:

"tucker held an honest monolog 6 days ago about xyz for which he got fired for!"

washoe looks at tuckers videos and finds a video dated 6 days ago containing described xyz and posts it...

?