Jump to content
The Corroboree

ballzac

Trusted Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    4,109

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

Posts posted by ballzac

  2. Posted

    Let me be clear - I'm all for freedom of speech and expression. Of course you should be allowed to speak up against oppression that affects you. You have some of the best methods of access in the world to do this.

    While you're at it, you should also be aware of and speak up about oppression against others.

    Agreed.

     

    I'm aware that people can't fight every battle, but if you are genuinely interested in, say, the over-incarceration of black males, lets talk about that rather than having a meta-argument about "men's rights activists never get any speaking time". Men's rights are addressed in a number of fields, but the group known as MRAs don't seem to have much to do with those serious arguments. I, again, implore you to list some self-identified MRAs who have published significant works in the field that address problems affecting people of colour, queer issues, ability issues - whatever it is to demonstrate that the movement isn't just a thinly veiled method of protecting white, middle-class men (who are some of the best privileged people in society).

    :scratchhead: We can talk about something else if you'd prefer, but it's just another example of you thinking that there aren't any issues that specifically affect men that are worth discussing. Considering that the men's rights movement is about improving the rights of men as a group, it's unsurprising that they aren't covering a lot of other issues specifically. Also, it's a small and relatively new movement, so the focus is going to be on much broader topics.

    I'm curious what your explanation for the number of women, black men, and (gasp) black women, involved in the MRM is if it's about protecting privilege for white, middle-class men? Sure, there are a few feminists who have covered topics on men's issues. Good on them. But these days, it seems most feminists are concerned with such troubling problems as: being offered coffee (Rebecca Watson); female characters in video games being depicted as damsels in distress (Anita Sarkeesian); and people making jokes about dongles (Adria Richards). Okay, so they're not exactly high profile academic feminists, but I don't see a lot of self-identified feminists speaking out against what they have to say.

    I have also explained before that I do not consider myself an MRA. While I care about men's rights, it's just another "ism", and as soon as you identify as something like that, you take on a lot of the baggage that comes with it. While there are MRAs whose position I agree with, there are also many who I don't. My point about MRM versus feminism is not that feminism is inherently worse than the MRM, but instead that society gives a blank cheque to one while being highly suspicious of the other.

     

    But you've said earlier that you are concerned about people not being well enough informed to make decisions about things like discrimination towards men. Wouldn't this also mean that many people aren't well informed enough to distinguish the falsified, racist dogma that is often spouted at white pride conventions?

    The only way for people to become informed is for these issues to be discussed.

     

    Do you deny that mainstream media is deeply racist, and that many people take information from the mainstream media at face value and as their key source of information about public issues?

    I'd mostly agree, though I think that's changing very quickly with the advent of the internet.

     

    I'll reply by quoting myself, since I've already addressed those points:

    That doesn't really address my point. What I'm hearing is "It's open to interpretation, and the line is drawn where I say it should be"

  3. Posted

    What about the opposite: Activists working against racism disrupting a white-pride group's public discussion? (just out of interest).

    I personally trust my own judgement on what I should be allowed to hear than some group that proclaims to be the arbiter of what's racist and what isn't. So yes, I think everyone's voice should be allowed to be heard.

     

    Certainly we do, we just don't hear them AS men's issues because most issues are already men's issues. Gay marriage, for example, is in part a men's issue. And we certainly hear about issues that specifically affect males, especially in the areas of health and criminology. Look at the Top News on the front page of bbc news today - you've got war (mens' business), football x2 ...

    Stories on war and football aren't really getting to the heart of the problems that affect men in society.

     

    The irony here is superb, the way the MRAs are speaking over/drowning out the people they're harassing for that very reason! The coin has two sides.

    They are there to disrupt a discussion on misandry. They have their own little meetings. In fact, they have classes that are actually organised by the university in which they can discuss what they want. If they wanted to genuinely be part of the discussion, I'm sure there was nothing stopping any of them from attending.

     

    Sure, and ethically that will be the most important group to address the rights of.

    Because queers (a term I try to use because it seems more inclusive than 'gay') are less privileged than straights I think their rights should be prioritised. Obviously there is no stable hierarchy or absolutes here, for me its more a matter of choosing the more equitable option.

    Still doesn't quite explain why you think that men's rights should be ignored because "queers" (or LGBTQ persons :wink:) have it worse, while you don't think that queer rights should be ignored because there are others that have it worse.

    Question: Who is more priveleged, blacks or queers? (i.e whose rights should be ignored in favour of the other group?)

  4. Posted

    An issue which is addressed by activists who work with issues around race, and which is also present in some feminist discussions (cf. bell hooks, We Real Cool). Can you show me where people identified as men's rights activists (or have men's rights as the focus of their research) address the problems faced specifically by black men?

    I don't know if there are any. My point was that men, as a group, includes minorities, so to make out that it is about "middle-class white men" is just plain wrong. But, if there is any work by that focusses specifically on the problems faced by black men, you are okay with attempts to silence that discussion, simply because it's not coming from the feminist perspective.

     

    Actually, that's your point. I gave up on that a few pages back, after the argument became tautological and neither of us could prove anything to your standards. My point was that middle-class males are overrepresented in public discourse, and that women are under-represented.

    Okay, sorry. I misunderstood you. But if it's not due to discrimination, then the solution is simple: more women should step up and get involved in public discourse. I mean, if you're not claiming discrimination, then there really aren't any barriers other than personal choice and ability.

     

    Show me direct evidence that men have a harder time getting a job at the university than women do, and that the reason for that is feminists taking action against already socio-economically disadvantaged men.

    I don't believe I ever made that claim. I might have said that this will be the end result if we force employers to pick 50/50 by gender when the pool of applicants is predominantly male.

  5. Posted · Edited by ballzac

    If it was a speaker who had less opportunity to have their opinion heard, like a queer speaker, then I would be concerned.

    Please explain the difference between a speaker who is gay and a "queer speaker"?

     

    but I'm sure you're aware of the ways that voices from other cultural contexts are silenced in a less dramatic fashion. How many Indigenous Australian columnists do the major newspapers have on their staff, for example?

    Yes, I'm aware there are many other problems in society, and many other groups that are not heard. What I'm saying is that it's not okay that it happens to anyone. My point all along has been to question why so-called progressives are generally so unwilling to accept that men can suffer from discrimination, that issues that affect men are readily ridiculed and ignored. It's great that you care about the plight of Indigenous Australians. I do too, and if you were telling me it was okay for a white pride group to disrupt a conference that was aimed at improving the conditions of Indigenous Australians, I would be arguing with you about that too.

     

    Fair point. But it doesn't detract from the trend in most conferences, as far as I can see, being male-dominant even when the topic has nothing to do with identity politics.

    It depends what the topic is. If it is a topic that predominantly attracts women, I have a feeling that the majority of speakers will be women. But there are many possible causes, and to assume discrimination is not fair. The percentage of female speakers at EGA events is quite small. Do you conclude that this is discrimination? There are many possible factors. How many women are interested in ethnobotany as opposed to men? How many pursue it as a career? How many choose to undertake postgraduate research in related fields? There are a lot of things to look into before you conclude that the organisers are silencing female voices. And I strongly disagree with your assertion that we hear middle-class male grievances all the time (and I don't know why you think this is about class, but my impression is that academic feminists are generally middle-class too). We hear men speak a lot, but we do not hear men or women speak about men's issues.

    Most people I discuss this with have never even heard the discrimination assumption on the gender wage gap challenged. They've never heard bogus domestic violence statistics challenged. They don't realise that more funding is provided for women's health than men's. They've never heard of the men's rights movement. Probably the only things I've heard on a wider scale are things about child custody, because it's such a widespread problem that affects so many men that it is actually in the public consciousness.

     

    I couldn't actually hear much of what was going on in this talk.

    I wonder why :rolleyes:

     

    I'm referring to discussions that do take this tactic. This one, for example, where the assumption is that feminism is to blame for the supposedly disadvantaged position of middle-class males

    I don't believe I've said that feminism is directly to blame for the problems faced by men. I have said that the mainstream feminist attitude claims to be about equality, but does not allow for people's concerns about the issues men face to be heard. Feminist ideology is given the benefit of the doubt at the expense of men's rights. I don't think feminism is the cause of these problems, but it sure makes it harder for them to get fixed.

     

    Where in the video does it interview the protesters and reveal that they are all there representing a feminist DA group?

    Are you kidding me? Who else do you think would be protesting against a discussion on misandry?

    Here is footage of the actual protestors if you're really questioning whether they were feminists protesting:

     

     

    The attitude is typical. It's essentially "We've got your back. If you shut up and keep silent, we will solve all these problems you're concerned about. But you're not allowed to have your own voice in this debate." (I'm paraphrasing :lol:)

     

    Sure, if you strip the context completely away. For me, the context is always important to understand, though. And the context of the gay marriage debate is that people who identify as queer are a minority who are discriminated against and are underprivileged compared to middle class men.

    You completely didn't address my point, which was that if you are going to rank people on a scale of privelege, then all but one group are going to be above the bottom.

     

    Sure, if you strip the context completely away. For me, the context is always important to understand, though. And the context of poverty is that people who are impoverished are starving to death in third world countries and are underprivileged compared to middle-class gay people in the West.

    Get it? You responded as though I never made that point, and that I was minimising the concerns of the gay rights movement in the same way that you are minimising the concerns of the men's rights movement. Please answer this clearly. If you think men's rights shouldn't be addressed because there are people worse off than "middle class" men, why don't you think it is okay to write off the gay rights movement based on the same fact? Because, yes, there are people in the world worse off than middle-class (I can do that too) white homosexuals in the West.

     

    There are so many economic, social, health, and other issues that follow from laws allowing and protecting the right to gay marriage that this is an important issue to address. These are issues that straight people (like the guy in your video, if I understand you correctly) don't have to think about, and don't experience directly.

    If you're genuinely interested in the content of the video, you should turn the captions on :wink:

  6. Posted

    Same difference. Women's issues are shouted down, queer issues are shouted down. Men's issues aren't some anomaly here.

    It is not socially acceptable (and rightly so) to silence people talking about women's issues or queer issues. Would you also be saying "boohoo" if this was a gay rights or women's rights group being (almost) prevented from speaking? If you would not say "boohoo" to that, then this is an anomaly, because groups like this are seen, and treated, differently by people who think they're liberal and progressive.

     

    That's one of the things I took from it, yes. But I wasn't referring specifically to the organisers, although they are undoubtedly to blame for putting but a single woman on the panel. The male speakers don't appear to give her space to speak, and indeed most conferences are dominated by male voices. Public discourse is a male-dominated culture.

    You are really just seeing what you want to see. There is a group of feminists shouting and banging (and eventually pulling a fire alarm) to try to silence the speakers (including the female speaker). The organisers gave her a platform to speak because they are interested in what she has to say. The feminist group tried to disable the ability for both speakers to have their voices heard.

    The talk was about misandry. While there are plenty of women who are interested in men's rights, it is naturally a male dominated topic, just like there are men in women's rights circles and straight people in gay rights circles. But it is natural that those topics are dominated by people who are most closely affected by the issues being discussed.

     

    Look at a number of conference schedules in the humanities and social sciences (in both domains there are enough female experts to have a year's worth of conferences at which women speak exclusively) and analyse the breakdown of speakers by gender. This conference (http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/qualitative/announcements/conference-program-qualitative-social-scienceharvard-knowledge-production-and-communit) last year at Harvard in Qualitative social sciences has 13 male speakers to 8 women speakers, the keynote is a man, and the chairs are 3:1 male. This is by no means an atypical conference make up in this area, and is hosted by a prestigious university where gender equality is a more visible issue than in everyday life.

    That is not evidence of systemic discrimination. Even if you are right that this is typical, it says nothing about the causes.

     

    People take men's issues seriously, just not when their tacit aim is to undermine groups that are less advantaged than they are.

    Where in the talk about misandry was there any aim to undermine another group? You didn't take it seriously: you said "boohoo". That's about as dismissive as you can get.

     

    I think you'll find men's issues are taken very seriously when they also pertain to a minority or oppressed group, but why should we focus our energies on white, middle class males when there are so many more groups in society that are far worse off. Get everyone on more or less equal footing, then people will be more willing to listen to white, middle-class, male problems. Until then, those issues shouldn't be prioritised over more pressing ones, and doing so strikes me as the same attitude as CEO's who constantly give themselves a raise while making cutbacks at the lower levels to justify it financially.

    The same argument could be made about any group. The gay marriage debate is one example. I mean, using your reasoning, who has the right to complain about not being able to get married when there are people suffering famine and dying in wars all over the world. Besides, this isn't about issues faced only by "white, middle-class, males". It is about problems faced by men in general. All the problems that I have mentioned in this thread are faced by men other than middle-class white ones. The huge percentage of men in prison are mostly black, for example.

    In this very video that we're discussing, the male speaker is discussing what is was like growing up gay in a society that expects people to conform to certain gender roles. If he was speaking at, say, a gay rights conference, and it was a group of conservatives or neo-nazis protesting, I think your attitude would be different, but because he's there "as a man" not "as a homosexual", you are dismissive towards what he has to say, and are okay with a group, because they are feminists, trying to prevent him from talking.

     

    No I don't. But such data would be largely irrelevant anyway, given that we live in a culture that encourages men to become leaders and women to support them. A culture that views politics as a male domain, and which, as we see with Gillard at the moment, holds women to far higher standards than men are held to.

    It's not irrelevant. You are claiming discrimination, which you evidence with the fact that more parliamentarians are male than female. If fewer women choose to go into politics than men, then we should expect this. If, say, 30% of aspiring politicians were women, but we push to get 50% into parliament, then this is preferential treatment and would be discrimination in itself. If you want to change gender stereotypes and think that more women should be interested in politics, start at the bottom, not the top, otherwise we are going to end up with people who are not as qualified for the job, the same as in any industry where men outnumber the women when we push to get a higher percentage of the small number of women. The same would be true in reverse. If we pushed to have 50% of nurses in each hospital be male, we would end up with many more shit nurses, because you'd be picking those males from a very small pool of applicants and would have to hire people who were not as qualified for the job.

     

    By the way, you're claiming discrimination without proving it on your own terms also.

    How so?

    • Like 1

  9. Posted

    Those poor men! Women, on the other hand, are never shouted down or shut out of public discourse :scratchhead:

    It's not about men being shouted down. It's about men's issues being shouted down.

     

    You can well see this, even in this video, which has several male speakers, and a single woman speaker who gets barely any speaking space, comparatively.

    You watch that video, and what you take from it is that the female speaker wasn't given enough opportunity to speak by the organisers? :blink:

     

    Any remotely objective person who has been to a number of conferences will know that the lion's share of obnoxious speakers and audience members are men.

    I don't actually recall seeing a lot of obnoxious speakers or audience members of any gender. Maybe you're going to the wrong conferences.

     

    Anyone who has taken part in discussion groups will know that men generally take up much more 'space' than women in discussions.

    That depends largely on the percentage of women in the field in question, as well as the percentage who have the expertise to speak about the subject matter, as well as the percentage who volunteer to speak. If you have any evidence that there is systemic discrimination (which you are implying) that allows men more airtime than women, then you should present it.

     

    Boohoo, I say. A few white, middle-class men don't get their voices heard in what looks like an academic context.

    This has been my point all along, that people see it as perfectly okay that men are silenced, regardless of whether their concerns are legitimate or not. Everything you say just makes my point for me. Men's issues are not taken seriously, and when people actually try to discuss them, people attempt to disrupt these discussions, and instead of condemning these actions and saying that everyone's voice should be heard, people like you say things like "boohoo". Early on in this thread, you said that feminism is about equality, and that I was mischaracterising it by saying that it is a movement that focusses only on the problems that women face at the expense of men's issues. But rather than condemning the actions of feminists who silence groups talking about men's issues, and saying "those feminists are not the norm", you actually condone this and say it's not important. You really cannot do a good job of convincing me that feminism is about equality, if your very attitude is that it's okay for feminists to disrupt discussions on men's issues.

     

    Not a big drama, and certainly not representative of how male voices are heard in academic discussions.

    No, it's not. Men are certainly permitted to talk about issues about things not related to gender, and also to talk about gender if they stick to the feminist script. It's when they start talking about issues that affect them, or when women talk about issues that affect men, that they are shouted down.

     

    According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, women comprise half of Australia’s total population (50.2 per cent in 2010).[3] However, as Table 1 shows, women comprise less than one-third (30.1 per cent) of all parliamentarians in Australia’s parliaments.

    I guess its because of the lifestyle choices they make, despite having that huge incentive of higher wages than men :huh:

    Do you have any data that shows how many men versus how many women aspire to a career in politics? Or how many have relevant qualifications? I'd be interested in seeing the statistics on how many women graduate from degrees in political science versus how many men do. If, say, 20% of of political science majors are women but 30% of parliamentarians are women, would that change your mind?

    You can't claim discrimination unless you can show it. Almost all fields have a significant difference in the number of men and women. Some fields (like fashion design) are predominantly female, while others (politics included) are predominantly male. If you believe the latter is due to discrimination, then show some evidence.

  11. Posted

    Not that you owed anyone an explanation, but it's appreciated that you gave one anyway.

    To be fair to all of us assuming that this was to do with Psylo's demise, you did originally post this question in the his poll thread, so I don't think it's completely out of left field for us to assume they were related

    • Like 6

  12. Posted

    he was only banned when he messaged the mods to ask them to, and in particular when he started deleting threads

    He didn't specifically ask. He reported my post in his poll thread for "bullying". He has a history of feigning offense to get attention from the mods, but I think if he didn't start vandalising threads, he would not have been banned. Psylo clearly wanted to go, and with his characteristic narcissism, he decided to behave like a spree killer and take some of the forum down with him.

    I'm not upset that psylo has gone. I used to be somewhat supportive of him when other people were getting frustrated with his abrasive nature, but most of my recent interactions with him have been unilaterally hostile, so I had gone from support to indifference. I don't normally put people on ignore because I'm a mod and I think it's important that I see everything that's going on, but when I got a PM from Psylo informing me that he had reported me for bullying, I put him on ignore, because I thought it was the best way to avoid any confrontation. So really, it would have made little difference to me if he was still here.

    I'm curious too as to why SyNeR has decided to leave, but I think if he wanted to say, he would have already. It does seem that it must be to do with Psylo: Maybe he felt Psylo was treated unfairly? If so, that's a shame. Psylo made his bed...

    • Like 2

  15. Posted

    I wouldn't uproot it. If it went into the pot and then straight into full sun, I think it's fair to guess that it doesn't have enough roots. If it's been in the pot for 18 months, then there must be another explanation. Either way, putting it in a shady spot so it doesn't get any more dehydrated isn't going to hurt it.

  16. Posted

    Does the scop have roots yet? It's almost unrecognisable due to being so dehydrated, and it's hard to believe that it could get like that if you're watering it every couple of weeks if it has roots, particularly because it's not facing north.

    If it's only recently potted, you should leave it in a shady position for a few weeks so it has time to grow roots before it shrivels up completely. (Regardless of how often you water it, if it has no roots, it will not be able to drink.)

    I also agree with qualia that watering more often in summer is preferable with trichs. But that said, I have neglected mine significantly this summer, and none of them are that dehydrated, despite being north facing and copping full sun for most of the day.

    • Like 1

  18. Posted · Edited by ballzac

    I'm a bit of a hoarder, so while I don't specifically collect anything, I find it really hard to throw out anything that I could see being useful in the future. As with others, this has inclluded electrical cords. I had a big drawer full of cords with broken plugs. My girlfriend told me I had to throw out about 90% of it, and then a month later I got a call from a friend asking if I had any old electrical shit to use for a prop he was making :ana:

    I have a lot of homebrew shit, and I can't bear to throw out crown seal bottles. I had the shed pretty much full of them recently, even though I rarely use them. I don't have much time to be brewing at the moment, and when I do, I usually keg now anyway. Was told I had to pick a couple of different types that I want to keep and ditch the rest. I also can't bear to throw out spirit bottles or tobacco tins, so I have a few of those.

    Some other stuff I have is juggling stuff (cj balls, clubs, torches, bean bag balls), steins (only a few and they're cheapo ones), some board games (only half a dozen that I really like), LPs (just a few), playing cards, and of course computers.

    Got a small number of hand-coolers (marble, turquoise, green obsidian, and tiger's eye among others).

    ETA:

    Some of my favourite boardgames:

    DSC00184.jpg

    Agricola and Puerto Rico are particularly good. Agricola can be very frustrating, but it's a very charming game, though it was really hard to learn how to play from the instructions that came with it, even though they're really detailed.

    Some playing cards:

    DSC00186.jpg

    • Like 2

  20. Posted

    The short answer would be "no". You would be better off finding detailed descriptions in peer-reviewed literature, or at the very least a respected book, and comparing it with your own observations. Not only is there no peer-review here, but not many people actually have the credentials to be formally identifying plants. A lot of people here are very knowledgeable, but a lot of the common IDs may be perpetuated myths. This doesn't matter for the purpose of knowing if member A has the same plant as member B, and for member A to know what the effects of plant X are going to be if he makes a tea out of it or smokes it, when he asks member B what the effects were when they did the same. But message boards cannot be relied upon for information that fits with the nomenclature in the literature. I think these things are getting better over time, but basically it looks really bad to submit any work that references a discussion forum as evidence for something, unless it was a thesis actually on the dynamics of online discussions or something.

    • Like 3

  22. Posted · Edited by ballzac

    The main two concerns are

    1. What you need

    and

    2. What you want

    For the first, I'm talking about compatibility. Since you seem to be clear on choices of other components, simply work out what parts you want, and write down a list of motherboards that are compatible with the other parts:

    Case: If you have a micro-ATX case, you will need a micro-ATX mobo, but if you have a regular ATX case, you can fit either a micro or regular mobo in it.

    CPU: Mobo needs the same slot as the CPU

    RAM: again, needs to be compatible.

    I/O: If you are buying a new HDD, you will need a mobo with sata (which I'm sure all recent mobos have), but if you are reusing an old one, then you might need one that also has an IDE slot. These are becoming increasingly hard to get. If they have an old IDE drive, I would chuck it out and get them a new SATA drive, but it's not necessary.

    For the second item, I'm talking about tailoring to the intended use. Based on the requirements, you will be fine with integrated graphics. As far as I know, every mobo with a slot that is compatible with IG CPUs will be able to use the graphics, but this might be worth checking on the mobo specs. What this means, though, is that you probably don't need any PCI-e slots, unless there is some other requirement that you have not mentioned. If there are no PCI cards in the current system, then you'll pretty much be able to get away with any slot configuration out there. I personally like to have a few usable slots on a mobo even if I don't expect to use them, but most mobos these days come with at least 4 slots or something.

    Data storage doesn't sound like it would be an issue, so you can probably get by with the minimal number of SATA ports.

    Work out how many rear and front usb ports will be used. The mobo has headers on it for the front panel, so even if your case has 4, if the mobo only has two headers, you will only be able to use two of the front panel slots. Also, some mobos use the same circuitry for the headers as for the back panel slots, so when you plug in the front ones, the rear ones are disabled. Check whether this is the case in the mobo manual, and if so account for it when calculating how many slots you need. Most people would get by with one front panel one and two rear panel ones, and most mobos will exceed this by a wide margin.

    It's probably worth making sure you have SATAIII and USB3.0, though most mobos nowadays probably have both.

    Also, if you're going with integrated graphics, then check what sort of outputs the mobo has for graphics, and if this will be compatible with the monitor you want. Most mobos have two or three different connectors. I prefer DVI, but many monitors don't support it. Most mobos and monitors will have at least two of DVI, HDMI, and VGA, so whichever ones they have, there will usually be at least one that matches up, but it's worth checking before buying.

    I usually use 'concern 1' (compatibility) to write a list of mobos in my price range that will be compatible with the parts I want, and then pick from the list based on 'concern 2'. Sometimes I do it the other way around, like I recently wanted a computer with at least 8 internal SATA slots, and that severely narrowed down my choices and I had to pick other components for compatibility, but that won't be an issue for you. After writing a list of compatible ones, your task will be pretty easy because you don't have a lot of requirements.

    I wouldn't buy an el cheapo one, but you won't need an expensive one. It would probably be excessive for your needs to spend more than about $80 on a board. If you don't want to overclock it (I would avoid this when building a machine for someone else) then you don't need any fancy BIOS features, and you probably need minimal PCI, PCI-e, and SATA/IDE slots. There are plenty of respected brands. I would avoid getting a brand that is hard to find info on. I have done this when refurbishing an old computer with a damaged motherboard (while keeping the almost decade old cpu and ram) but would not do it for a new system. Gigabyte has always served me well, but there are plenty of other brands that are just as good.

  23. Posted

    Can I have some confirmation on the rules?

    1-3 votes = each vote worth 1/3

    n votes (4+) = each vote worth 1/n

    "likes" on image-free posts not counted.

    Are "likes" on your posts (bogfrog) also not counted for the purposes of the calculation...even if they're picture posts?

    Is it 'loser' wins still? Or are we back to winner wins? (not that it should affect who anyone votes for)

    :)

    • Like 1

  25. Posted

    That does sound like it would work. I am shocking at maths, but i suppose its a fair punishment to struggle through fractionised like equations after jumping about with all this to-ing and fro-ing.. And i dont want Amazonian to get stoned!

    Sorry guys.

    Now we'll go with CBL's idea.

    (I feel like a mega doofus right now lol.)

    Doh, now I want my vote to count, so I gotta go back and unlike the ones I just reliked :lol: ...j/k

    Use whatever system you want bogfrog. I don't think anyone really cares. It was a great idea for a thread and it's been cool seeing everyone's pics :)

×