Messaging filters and receiving messages

[Fa****]

Just a question about the filters I have set for my messages. 

I have age limits (both upper and lower) as part of my filters. 

If, however, I choose to send an initial message to someone whose age falls outwith of those parameters are they able to reply or do my filters block them even though I’ve initiated conversation?

Thanks

[4R****]

35 minutes ago, FatefulDestiny said:

 

If, however, I choose to send an initial message to someone whose age falls outwith of those parameters are they able to reply or do my filters block them even though I’ve initiated conversation?

 

If you send the first message, they can reply, regardless of your message filters. 

[Fa****]

12 minutes ago, 4RCH said:

If you send the first message, they can reply, regardless of your message filters. 

That’s what I suspected was probably the case. Thank you x

[Alistair1974]

I really do hope it blocks them. That would be marvellous. You're ok to discriminate against who can sent you messages, but you want to be able to do what you want to whomsoever you want yourself.

Seems fair.

[Alistair1974]

Send* Got to love autocorrect when you've a head of selfrighteous steam up! hahah

[Ar****]

1 minute ago, Alistair1974 said:

I really do hope it blocks them. That would be marvellous. You're ok to discriminate against who can sent you messages, but you want to be able to do what you want to whomsoever you want yourself.

Seems fair.

What absolute bollocks. Try this instead:-

You're allowed to set whatever boundaries you want, for whatever reason you want.

When you set a boundary, you're allowed to step outside of it on your terms and for your reasons, because it's YOUR boundary. Other people do not get a say in the circumstances where it's okay for your boundary to get crossed.

[Alistair1974]

7 minutes ago, Aranhis said:

What absolute bollocks. Try this instead:-

You're allowed to set whatever boundaries you want, for whatever reason you want.

When you set a boundary, you're allowed to step outside of it on your terms and for your reasons, because it's YOUR boundary. Other people do not get a say in the circumstances where it's okay for your boundary to get crossed.

Horse crap. If you wish to use discriminatory tools.. be it ages, sexes, genders, you should live with the consequences of your choices. If you choose to stop en mass a group of people from being able to contact you, but then decide you're going to instigate a contact with a few select ones from that group, I frankly find that disgusting and abhorrent.  VerFrny *** farm-esque. It's the equivalent of someone starting a sentence of "I'm not being racist but..." and then almost invariably preceding to be racist. 

Frankly the idea that people can discriminate on here like that is astonishing. 

[Ar****]

1 hour ago, Alistair1974 said:

Horse crap. If you wish to use discriminatory tools.. be it ages, sexes, genders, you should live with the consequences of your choices. If you choose to stop en mass a group of people from being able to contact you, but then decide you're going to instigate a contact with a few select ones from that group, I frankly find that disgusting and abhorrent.  VerFrny *** farm-esque. It's the equivalent of someone starting a sentence of "I'm not being racist but..." and then almost invariably preceding to be racist. 

Frankly the idea that people can discriminate on here like that is astonishing. 

VerFrny? Have you been on the covfefe?

So let me ask you... do you have a mobile phone? If you do possess one, what do you do when you get a cold call from somebody trying to sell you another? I personally make sure their number is blocked as soon as the call is over, and that's pretty standard practice for most folk. I'd pre-emptively block every single one before they called me if I could. Yet every few years I decide I'd like to buy a new one, so I go reach out to one of these merchants of telephonery. Disgusting and abhorrent, you say? A lot of people have similar issues with insurance.

Or how about this one. Have you chosen a belief system/structure which suits your ethics and lifestyle? One of spirituality, religion, atheism, agnosticism, anything? Have you feel about people with other belief systems knocking on the door of your house trying to change that? What do you do when that happens? Do you reject them yet consider yourself disgusting and abhorrent when you enjoy the freedom to explore and change your own path?

Do you like kink, or sex? Perhaps both? Are there people you don't want to hear from about such matters? A gender you don't prefer, or maybe you don't like the idea of getting it on with an octogenarian? Can you on any level sc*** up a sliver of an empathetic thought process and imagine what it might be like to constantly receive - and have to manually filter - lewd messages from those people you don't want to receive such messages from and yet not also conceive of a valid reason why you might WANT to reach out to them?

I've given those examples to highlight what a flawed argument it is you're trying to make, and don't imagine for a moment that you'll "get it". But for those who do enjoy a good forum chat I'll wind up by adding that I don't even need to take a moment to think of at least two valid examples from my personal experiences here on Fet where I can speak of people who had/have me outside of their filters yet I'm on good terms with.

One of the friends I made in my very first year here was somebody I'd seen - as is so often the case - and interacted with here on the forums for a long while. We had a good rapport, and when I tried to reach out and send her a message after however long (I can't even remember what it was for, I think it was to give some support after a particularly righteous prick had been giving her grief) I wasn't able because I fell below the lower limit of her age range settings. A perfectly valid reason. She instead reached out to me some time later for a similar reason; we hit it off, she became one of the people from here who I've met in person, and we still keep in touch. Similarly there is a gentleman I've come to know through the forums and my time here who I also was unable to message when I first tried (that was just to send an acknowledgement of respect after some particularly fine forums remarks/observations he had been making at the time); most fellas aren't interested in receiving messages from other guys. And now? It turns out he quite respects me too and we interact fairly regularly.

I didn't consider either of these people to be abhorrent or disgusting at the time. I don't see a double-standard. I'm glad to call them friend, understand and have no problem with the boundaries they set which prevented me from contacting them, and will absolutely defend theirs and anyone else's right to protect themselves that way.

See also ump*** other existing threads about boundaries and consent.

[Deleted Member]

3 hours ago, Alistair1974 said:

I really do hope it blocks them. That would be marvellous. You're ok to discriminate against who can sent you messages, but you want to be able to do what you want to whomsoever you want yourself.

Seems fair.

Interesting the assumption you jump to about why they might want to message.

 

I don't allow under 30s to instigate messages from me, because I will not consider a Dom beneath that age. I also find that the majority of obscene messages come from this age range.

 

However, I frequently message friends on here who are under that age, and want to be able to do so. Because this place is more than a dating app, it's a BDSM community, and I can (gasp) want to tailor the PMs I receive from potential Doms to not deal with the harrassment and *** that can come from a simple "No thanks" AND want to chat with friends I have made on this platform.

 

[Alistair1974]

12 minutes ago, Aranhis said:

VerFrny? Have you been on the covfefe?

So let me ask you... do you have a mobile phone? If you do possess one, what do you do when you get a cold call from somebody trying to sell you another? I personally make sure their number is blocked as soon as the call is over, and that's pretty standard practice for most folk. I'd pre-emptively block every single one before they called me if I could. Yet every few years I decide I'd like to buy a new one, so I go reach out to one of these merchants of telephonery. Disgusting and abhorrent, you say? A lot of people have similar issues with insurance.

Or how about this one. Have you chosen a belief system/structure which suits your ethics and lifestyle? One of spirituality, religion, atheism, agnosticism, anything? Have you feel about people with other belief systems knocking on the door of your house trying to change that? What do you do when that happens? Do you reject them yet consider yourself disgusting and abhorrent when you enjoy the freedom to explore and change your own path?

Do you like kink, or sex? Perhaps both? Are there people you don't want to hear from about such matters? A gender you don't prefer, or maybe you don't like the idea of getting it on with an octogenarian? Can you on any level sc*** up a sliver of an empathetic thought process and imagine what it might be like to constantly receive - and have to manually filter - lewd messages from those people you don't want to receive such messages from and yet not also conceive of a valid reason why you might WANT to reach out to them?

I've given those examples to highlight what a flawed argument it is you're trying to make, and don't imagine for a moment that you'll "get it". But for those who do enjoy a good forum chat I'll wind up by adding that I don't even need to take a moment to think of at least two valid examples from my personal experiences here on Fet where I can speak of people who had/have me outside of their filters yet I'm on good terms with.

One of the friends I made in my very first year here was somebody I'd seen - as is so often the case - and interacted with here on the forums for a long while. We had a good rapport, and when I tried to reach out and send her a message after however long (I can't even remember what it was for, I think it was to give some support after a particularly righteous prick had been giving her grief) I wasn't able because I fell below the lower limit of her age range settings. A perfectly valid reason. She instead reached out to me some time later for a similar reason; we hit it off, she became one of the people from here who I've met in person, and we still keep in touch. Similarly there is a gentleman I've come to know through the forums and my time here who I also was unable to message when I first tried (that was just to send an acknowledgement of respect after some particularly fine forums remarks/observations he had been making at the time); most fellas aren't interested in receiving messages from other guys. And now? It turns out he quite respects me too and we interact fairly regularly.

I didn't consider either of these people to be abhorrent or disgusting at the time. I don't see a double-standard. I'm glad to call them friend, understand and have no problem with the boundaries they set which prevented me from contacting them, and will absolutely defend theirs and anyone else's right to protect themselves that way.

See also ump*** other existing threads about boundaries and consent.

And... this is why I don't engage people on here. (forums) Absolutely no understanding of the concept I was talking about. Entertainingly though you picked up on a typo. Which, I guess, sets the level which is being worked with.  

But it's late and I'm bored. So lets take apart your answer. What do I do when I get a cold call?  I... establish first that it IS a cold call by..  listening to the initial spiel. I can then, after being informed, happily slap the phone down. And block the number!  What I don't do however, is ban anyone who doesn't have my number from being able to ring me.  Imagine, if you will, an emergency service calling you to tell you your son's been in an accident and requires your ***, but, you've pre-emptively decided to block / ignore any calls not recognised ergo, your son dies because your preconditioned superimposed cognitive negative choice, obliterates your ability to even entertain that anyone calling you within that set of numbers {unknown/withheld/unrecognised} could be calling you for any reason that you might be interested in. 

Ironically.. the person doing this, is quite ok with their day job, which is cold calling but they're working for a charity so, that makes it ok. (although there's an ethical debate as to whether this is ok as there is also the debate that, charities only exist because governments refuse to provide for their citizens, which is obviously morally abhorrent, and yet .. there are hundreds of charities in existence ergo.. this situation must be enabled by the people who vote for said government). 

2: People knocking on my door espousing an alternative lifestyle/belief system...  Marvellous. All power to the evangelist of X Y or Z. I can engage, or not, once there's been an initial point of contact. Sure it could be inconvenient, time consuming perhaps, but should I instead, remove all doors from the front of the house just in case the person who might knock might be one of these ignoble philistines. What of the fireman, who is banging on your door to inform you that next door is on fire and you're about to die in a blaze of presumably massively insular reading material because .. you're living in so much *** that that knock might be from someone you.. don't want to hear from.  Oh that horror of that unwanted knock. Perhaps instead we should take everyone's wrists in order to ensure, no knocking is possible. Apart from the people you want to knock on your door of course. Can't be de-wristing them. But wait.. ironically .. you, the guy in the house, work as someone who statistically finds a gas leak in 1 in 50 of all houses. These can be fatal if not checked and as such, you need to cold call every house in order to test it, but you can't as there's no door to knock on,  and quite possibly you don't have a wrist in order to even attempt to knock. 

The moral being... why in the hell should you think you're special enough to be able to pick and choose people from a demographic you're wilfully and purposefully segregating and discriminating against, just because you think you have the right to?  Why are you not subject to your own applied blanket censorism?  If you choose not to allow X to be able to message you, but you want the right to message them.. how is that ok?  Good god! It's not a concept that's hard to grasp. All ***s are equal but some are more equal than others... is not an ok mantra to be preaching here.
 
This idea of "my" ability to do something should supersede someone else's, simply because it's "mine" needs to be deracinated completely. Self serving entitlement to the detriment of others..  nope... sorry.. not getting on board with that whatsoever!  If you want to stop someone from contacting you, it should cut both ways. You should not be able to contact them! 

I apologise for the lack of typos in this mesmeric meandering missive/monologue. You'll require something else to latch on to initially with you undoubtedly forthcoming reposte  x 

[Alistair1974]

15 minutes ago, Lady_Char said:

Interesting the assumption you jump to about why they might want to message.

 

I don't allow under 30s to instigate messages from me, because I will not consider a Dom beneath that age. I also find that the majority of obscene messages come from this age range.

 

However, I frequently message friends on here who are under that age, and want to be able to do so. Because this place is more than a dating app, it's a BDSM community, and I can (gasp) want to tailor the PMs I receive from potential Doms to not deal with the harrassment and *** that can come from a simple "No thanks" AND want to chat with friends I have made on this platform.

 

Assumption as to why they want to message? 
Where? 
I don't see any assumption. 
In fact, there's no indication whatsoever regarding why they are wanting to message? 
It appears you've conjured that out of thin air.

Did you actually read my post..?  Or just... *coughs* ... make an assumption? 

[Deleted Member]

Just now, Alistair1974 said:

Assumption as to why they want to message? 
Where? 
I don't see any assumption. 
In fact, there's no indication whatsoever regarding why they are wanting to message? 
It appears you've conjured that out of thin air.

Did you actually read my post..?  Or just... *coughs* ... make an assumption? 

Why else would you be so frightfully and ridiculously upset over an innocuous question? You imply, as you well know. Are you going to be disingenuous as well?

[Alistair1974]

Just now, Lady_Char said:

Why else would you be so frightfully and ridiculously upset over an innocuous question? You imply, as you well know. Are you going to be disingenuous as well?

I'm sorry? I'm still awaiting for you to provide me with an assumption. 
Oh.. you did. Yours. Which you're not acknowledging... while still continuing to .. make assumptions.

Who said I was upset? This is an open discourse which.. again .. ironically given the subject.. you're projecting and superimposing things upon my postings, which are not there but you've decided are. 

Which is a perfect example of a reaction to an imagined stimulus not unlike/ dissimilar to the idea of blocking a complete set of people  based on a preconceived idea with no actual evidence as to their collective intention. 

Like the guy choosing not to walk in Dead Poets society, you illustrate my point fantastically. 
 

[Deleted Member]

Just now, Alistair1974 said:

I'm sorry? I'm still awaiting for you to provide me with an assumption. 
Oh.. you did. Yours. Which you're not acknowledging... while still continuing to .. make assumptions.

Who said I was upset? This is an open discourse which.. again .. ironically given the subject.. you're projecting and superimposing things upon my postings, which are not there but you've decided are. 

Which is a perfect example of a reaction to an imagined stimulus not unlike/ dissimilar to the idea of blocking a complete set of people  based on a preconceived idea with no actual evidence as to their collective intention. 

Like the guy choosing not to walk in Dead Poets society, you illustrate my point fantastically. 
 

Fine, if we really must.

"when you've a head of selfrighteous steam up!" The phrase "a head" here has connotations of impetus and gives the image of a juggernaut - someone on a - as you say yourself - "selfrighteous" rant. The word selfrighteous itself acknowledges a certainty in yourself, generally characterized by its vasis in no fact. A self-appointed moral superiority.

 

Then we go to your comment itself.

"I really do hope it blocks them. That would be marvellous." This is a cold cruelty, amusingly sadistic on this site. You hope to take personal joy from this person being denied something that has no impact on you. It doesn't affect you at all and yet you are personally insulted to the point you wish them displeasure. Strange.

Then we come to "you want to be able to do what you want to whomsoever you want yourself". We'll ignore the awkwardness of the composition. The vagueness of "do what you want" and "to whomsoever you want" implies (yes, there's that word again) that they will be engaging in a variety of activities, and in it's very vagueness hints that these will likely be sexual or you would have named them.

 

You also end with the causic "Seems fair." Unneccesary sarcasm designed to establish some sort of hypocrisy on the part of the OP who has - I repeat - simply asked an innocuous question about how the site works. Again, why the need for such harshness of tone if you are not upset? Perhaps I'm doing you a disservie and you just have a negative and unpleasant personality.

 

At any rate, you will clearly argue with a brick wall, so I will not be replying again, no matter the provocation you throw my way.

[Alistair1974]

2 minutes ago, Lady_Char said:

Fine, if we really must.

"when you've a head of selfrighteous steam up!" The phrase "a head" here has connotations of impetus and gives the image of a juggernaut - someone on a - as you say yourself - "selfrighteous" rant. The word selfrighteous itself acknowledges a certainty in yourself, generally characterized by its vasis in no fact. A self-appointed moral superiority.

 

Then we go to your comment itself.

"I really do hope it blocks them. That would be marvellous." This is a cold cruelty, amusingly sadistic on this site. You hope to take personal joy from this person being denied something that has no impact on you. It doesn't affect you at all and yet you are personally insulted to the point you wish them displeasure. Strange.

Then we come to "you want to be able to do what you want to whomsoever you want yourself". We'll ignore the awkwardness of the composition. The vagueness of "do what you want" and "to whomsoever you want" implies (yes, there's that word again) that they will be engaging in a variety of activities, and in it's very vagueness hints that these will likely be sexual or you would have named them.

 

You also end with the causic "Seems fair." Unneccesary sarcasm designed to establish some sort of hypocrisy on the part of the OP who has - I repeat - simply asked an innocuous question about how the site works. Again, why the need for such harshness of tone if you are not upset? Perhaps I'm doing you a disservie and you just have a negative and unpleasant personality.

 

At any rate, you will clearly argue with a brick wall, so I will not be replying again, no matter the provocation you throw my way.

Haha there's a shock. A "I won't be replying" post. lol Because of course you wish to portray you've decided that's an end. 

Absolutely none of what you've written there, shows any assumptions from myself in my post you quoted while accusing me of.. making assumptions. While you.. are doing. This is called projection and transference. You've looked for a negative and then created one when it wasn't there. Whether this was cognitive or not, only you know.

You can't argue with a brick wall. I do like that metaphor though. It (here comes your word.. ) implies likening the people I'm having issues conveying this to, as brick walls within your metaphor. That's amused me. What? You meant "I" can't argue with a brick wall? Oh, I *** you're getting your first second and third person's mixed up.  You're right. I can't argue with a brick wall. I can write equations on it and helpful explanations so as to enlighten passers by as to what should be acceptable and unacceptable. Like a sign perhaps? Or maybe the LA Story  sign? Who knows.  

Entertaining that you've chosen again to project a negative upon self righteous. This speaks again more of you than of me.

I'm personally insulted? Hahaha Again another projection. 

Awkwardness of composition?  That's subjective and given I'm using British English rather than American I'll just assume you're not familiar with nuances and meter used in certain areas. Not an issue but again, it's entertaining that you'd pick at the outside, rather than the content first. That lack of depth seems to be a common thread and again is useable as a parallel if I wanted. Microcosms Macrocosms.

You.. have superimposed (again) sexual connotations where there are none. This again, speaks to your mindset not mine. Seems to me like there might well be a need for a bastion of morality here in this thread, self righteous or otherwise.

There were no assumptions. There were no sexual connotations. Occams Razor. You've assumed a zebra when hearing hooves.. or thought parrot who lives on a duck farm because you heard quacking.
 
The point is simple.. what's good for the goose is good for the gander (who hiss rather than quack... needed clarification just in case you get confused.)  If you ban a complete demographic from messaging you, you should not be able to message them.  I'm really not understanding how you're not getting this concept.  Why should you be able to message someone who couldn't message you first? That's simply not ok!  You don't have to be emotionally invested in it to see it. 
Oh but wait..  you threw out the moral superiority as a disparagement... and yet.. you want to have a superiority in terms of choice over someone else, without their input or say so. 

Transference and projection again. 
Now it makes more sense. 

And people wonder why there's so many here with no understanding of a Dom sub dynamic. 
Annnd we're back on Macro/Microcosms.. lol

[Deleted Member]

1 minute ago, Alistair1974 said:

Haha there's a shock. A "I won't be replying" post. lol Because of course you wish to portray you've decided that's an end. 

Absolutely none of what you've written there, shows any assumptions from myself in my post you quoted while accusing me of.. making assumptions. While you.. are doing. This is called projection and transference. You've looked for a negative and then created one when it wasn't there. Whether this was cognitive or not, only you know.

You can't argue with a brick wall. I do like that metaphor though. It (here comes your word.. ) implies likening the people I'm having issues conveying this to, as brick walls within your metaphor. That's amused me. What? You meant "I" can't argue with a brick wall? Oh, I *** you're getting your first second and third person's mixed up.  You're right. I can't argue with a brick wall. I can write equations on it and helpful explanations so as to enlighten passers by as to what should be acceptable and unacceptable. Like a sign perhaps? Or maybe the LA Story  sign? Who knows.  

Entertaining that you've chosen again to project a negative upon self righteous. This speaks again more of you than of me.

I'm personally insulted? Hahaha Again another projection. 

Awkwardness of composition?  That's subjective and given I'm using British English rather than American I'll just assume you're not familiar with nuances and meter used in certain areas. Not an issue but again, it's entertaining that you'd pick at the outside, rather than the content first. That lack of depth seems to be a common thread and again is useable as a parallel if I wanted. Microcosms Macrocosms.

You.. have superimposed (again) sexual connotations where there are none. This again, speaks to your mindset not mine. Seems to me like there might well be a need for a bastion of morality here in this thread, self righteous or otherwise.

There were no assumptions. There were no sexual connotations. Occams Razor. You've assumed a zebra when hearing hooves.. or thought parrot who lives on a duck farm because you heard quacking.
 
The point is simple.. what's good for the goose is good for the gander (who hiss rather than quack... needed clarification just in case you get confused.)  If you ban a complete demographic from messaging you, you should not be able to message them.  I'm really not understanding how you're not getting this concept.  Why should you be able to message someone who couldn't message you first? That's simply not ok!  You don't have to be emotionally invested in it to see it. 
Oh but wait..  you threw out the moral superiority as a disparagement... and yet.. you want to have a superiority in terms of choice over someone else, without their input or say so. 

Transference and projection again. 
Now it makes more sense. 

And people wonder why there's so many here with no understanding of a Dom sub dynamic. 
Annnd we're back on Macro/Microcosms.. lol

I'm British, smartipants.

 

Oh, sod it. Mods, just give me the points.

 

What a willy.

[Alistair1974]

34 minutes ago, Lady_Char said:

Fine, if we really must.

"when you've a head of selfrighteous steam up!" The phrase "a head" here has connotations of impetus and gives the image of a juggernaut - someone on a - as you say yourself - "selfrighteous" rant. The word selfrighteous itself acknowledges a certainty in yourself, generally characterized by its vasis in no fact. A self-appointed moral superiority.

 

Then we go to your comment itself.

"I really do hope it blocks them. That would be marvellous." This is a cold cruelty, amusingly sadistic on this site. You hope to take personal joy from this person being denied something that has no impact on you. It doesn't affect you at all and yet you are personally insulted to the point you wish them displeasure. Strange.

Then we come to "you want to be able to do what you want to whomsoever you want yourself". We'll ignore the awkwardness of the composition. The vagueness of "do what you want" and "to whomsoever you want" implies (yes, there's that word again) that they will be engaging in a variety of activities, and in it's very vagueness hints that these will likely be sexual or you would have named them.

 

You also end with the causic "Seems fair." Unneccesary sarcasm designed to establish some sort of hypocrisy on the part of the OP who has - I repeat - simply asked an innocuous question about how the site works. Again, why the need for such harshness of tone if you are not upset? Perhaps I'm doing you a disservie and you just have a negative and unpleasant personality.

 

At any rate, you will clearly argue with a brick wall, so I will not be replying again, no matter the provocation you throw my way.

Oh I nearly forgot..  as for my "Seems fair"... and then attempting to attribute it to disparaging the OP.  Impressive.  Not remotely true.. but impressive nevertheless.  The point is, as was the rest of the post, about the utter unbelievability of that as a dynamic. 
But hey.. Projection. Transference.  It's been your modus operandi from the initial insistence of  my making an assumption, which I didn't!
And you did. 

[Alistair1974]

4 minutes ago, Lady_Char said:

I'm British, smartipants.

 

Oh, sod it. Mods, just give me the points.

 

What a willy.

And insults now? Really? *rolls eyes*

[Deleted Member]

1 minute ago, Alistair1974 said:

And insults now? Really? *rolls eyes*

No, no. You're not upset at all.

[Alistair1974]

7 minutes ago, Lady_Char said:

No, no. You're not upset at all.

Upset? I still don't get why you keep wanting to superimpose things upon me. Or maybe *** things upon me.
Upset? Not remotely
Disappointed.
Absolutely.
Your inability to understand the subject matter without anthropomorphism of the words to contain emotions and then superimpose them upon me is baffling.

I'm not really sure what it is you're getting out of it apart from to appeal to other readers and influence their opinion negatively, or just to attempt to outright bully me. The latter won't work and the former... Well it's the internet. We know how that goes

[Deleted Member]

Just now, Alistair1974 said:

Upset? I still don't get why you keep wanting to superimpose things upon me. Or maybe *** things upon me.
Upset? Not remotely
Disappointed.
Absolutely.
Your inability to understand the subject matter without anthropomorphism of the words to contain emotions and then superimpose them upon me is baffling.

I'm not really sure what it is you're getting out of it apart from to appeal to other readers and influence their opinion negatively, or just to attempt to outright bully me. The latter won't work and the former... Well it's the internet. We know how that goes

Throwing down the bully card? That would imply my seniority (as bullies punch down). If you'd like to hand that to me, I'll gladly take it.

 

(And yes, I'm annoyed at myself for responding.)

[Deleted Member]

4 minutes ago, Alistair1974 said:

Upset? I still don't get why you keep wanting to superimpose things upon me. Or maybe *** things upon me.
Upset? Not remotely
Disappointed.
Absolutely.
Your inability to understand the subject matter without anthropomorphism of the words to contain emotions and then superimpose them upon me is baffling.

I'm not really sure what it is you're getting out of it apart from to appeal to other readers and influence their opinion negatively, or just to attempt to outright bully me. The latter won't work and the former... Well it's the internet. We know how that goes

Two questions, if you'll indulge me.

 

Why are you arguing with me? And why did you feel the need to be unkind in the very first place (not to me, to the OP).

[Alistair1974]

5 minutes ago, Lady_Char said:

Two questions, if you'll indulge me.

 

Why are you arguing with me? And why did you feel the need to be unkind in the very first place (not to me, to the OP).

I'm not arguing with you! You're either mistaken or outright lying about my comments and I'm correcting you, while at the same time remembering that you decided to superimpose a negative ( like you've just done AGAIN) on my original post re my being "unkind"!

And so to the original comment. Again..I was not being unkind. You've decided that. You've superimposed that. Not me.
I absolutely despise the idea that you can block someone here from messaging you, but you can message them. That's not unkind. The question was, can you message them even if you have your account set to them not being able to message you.

Again.. I really don't understand how anyone thinks that's ok. One rule for one. One for another. That's NOT ok.

[Deleted Member]

2 minutes ago, Alistair1974 said:

I'm not arguing with you! You're either mistaken or outright lying about my comments and I'm correcting you, while at the same time remembering that you decided to superimpose a negative ( like you've just done AGAIN) on my original post re my being "unkind"!

And so to the original comment. Again..I was not being unkind. You've decided that. You've superimposed that. Not me.
I absolutely despise the idea that you can block someone here from messaging you, but you can message them. That's not unkind. The question was, can you message them even if you have your account set to them not being able to message you.

Again.. I really don't understand how anyone thinks that's ok. One rule for one. One for another. That's NOT ok.

I gave you a very simple scenario where that feature can be used to protect someone.

And everyone is entitled to set their own filters. You can set yours to prevent me from messaging you, if you wish.

[Alistair1974]

8 minutes ago, Lady_Char said:

I gave you a very simple scenario where that feature can be used to protect someone.

And everyone is entitled to set their own filters. You can set yours to prevent me from messaging you, if you wish.

No. You started by.. Lying or being mistaken.. about me assuming content of the desired message to be sent.

Then you continued by lying.. or being mistaken .. about sexualising the content of my message, superimposing things which are not there.

You've subsequently name called, continued to superimpose things weigh are not there ( so.. lying... Or being mistaken?)

You've actually lied about not replying anymore,

And then you're lying... Or being mistaken.. re my supposed unkindness.. again.

It looks an awful lot like you're putting a huge amount of effort into carrying aspersions on my intentions, either outrightly or via the power of suggestions.

Seems strange given my issue here is the ability to be able to place a restriction on X's ability to message Y yet at the same time Y can message X. That disparity is, as I believe I said, abhorrent.