SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Journal by kolie
whats up soylentils. any good meta discussion of soylent we care to have?
-- other than actual doxxing or CSAM etc don't flag posts here thx --
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You will experience a strong urge to do good; but it will pass.
(Score: 2) by kolie on Friday October 24, @01:05AM (6 children)
I had hoped this discussion would be more substantive. Unfortunately, while there are some varied contributions, many posts are simply a rehash of the exact same old spam that typically go flagged. It's tiresome to repeatedly attempt clarifying a point that is simply not being engaged with. This experience confirms, once again, that any endeavor to discuss this banned user in earnest is once again proven futile.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 24, @10:35AM (3 children)
You know what the problem is, and you know what the solution is, kolie. All that remains is to implement it.
(Score: 2) by kolie on Friday October 24, @02:26PM (2 children)
Thx for really clearing that up.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 27, @10:48AM (1 child)
You really don't understand, at all, do you, kolie? You keep asking, but not listening. I was hopeful when you showed up as the savior of SoylentNews, but now I am starting to see that nothing will change. Sorry.
(Score: 2) by kolie on Monday October 27, @06:09PM
Since you seem intent on arguing purely by ipse dixit, you leave us with no rationale to analyze. You steadfastly refuse to make your esoteric beliefs exoteric for the rest of us. Given this steadfast refusal to provide any logical framework, what is one to conclude, other than that your objective is not consensus, but conflagration?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 26, @11:27PM (1 child)
I think it has, just not in the way intended. A consideration I have seen that I think has at least some life is that the site is now championing its community nature but the ban is still based on the staff decision. However, if the board and community at large were to take a vote on continuing the ban, I think a simple gesture at this journal and the last time this was attempted would make the vote unanimous. And I would consider doing just that. But, given the subject of the vote, I'd also consider if it would make a practical difference to the situation.
(Score: 2) by kolie on Monday October 27, @08:28PM
I'll get right on it.