Messaging filters and receiving messages

[Alistair1974]

Casting aspersions. * Cold hands and crappy autocorrect

[Deleted Member]

2 minutes ago, Alistair1974 said:

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.

Bully... liar... you are one to talk about the name calling.

Go back and look, because I'm not repeating myself. And I am not replying again now. I get the feeling (and it is my feeling, so I may feel it if I wish) that you like to crush things.

[Alistair1974]

8 minutes ago, Lady_Char said:

Bully... liar... you are one to talk about the name calling.

Go back and look, because I'm not repeating myself. And I am not replying again now. I get the feeling (and it is my feeling, so I may feel it if I wish) that you like to crush things.

I've not name called. I've offered two scenarios and given you the benefit of the doubt by providing a second option.

Not a fan of having these things pointed out eh? I've maintained civility and stated points clearly.

But yeah.. time for more transference again. I like to crush things? I'm actually fighting a moral standpoint for equality. But hey, again, you go right ahead and put that out there as a negative suggestion upon my person.

[4R****]

Well that went out of control rather quickly didn't it. How about we bring the conversation back to the OP, stop the public squabbling and play nicely?

 

[4R****]

5 hours ago, Aranhis said:

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.

What he said!

Edited December 29, 2022 by 4RCH

[na****]

Was reading this post with interest. God forbid I open my mouth 🤦🏼‍♀️Was getting out of hand earlier. Very personal. Then I’ve been reprimanded for less. I was only going to say chill out 😎Complimentary from me I think. I’d be strung and quartered for this... 🤣🤣🤣
 

Edited December 29, 2022 by naughtynat

[Chloebear]

1 hour 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

I don’t think you understand anthropomorphism. Or boundaries. Or discrimination. You are not discriminating if you don’t date certain ages… that’s just a choice…. And it’s valid because of life stages and other factors. You’re not excluding someone from a job or somehow denying them something that is on offer to everyone, since a relationship is chosen on matching attributes. You don’t get unfair relationship ending tribunals etc…. The premise itself is ludicrous.

[na****]

7 hours 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. 

I really think discriminatory is a pretty strong word and you should reflect on what you’ve said. Maybe you come across as the bully and defensive…and no! You can’t steal my crown of saying the wrong thing in the wrong way, at the wrong time. I own it!

🤣🤣🤣

I wear it well 👑and it’s all mine haha. Chill out. These ladies were having a discussion. It’s really not that serious dude.

Edited December 29, 2022 by naughtynat

[Myia]

I tried something similar and I’ve found that they can still message you but you don’t get notified when they do

[Alistair1974]

2 hours ago, Chloebear said:

I don’t think you understand anthropomorphism. Or boundaries. Or discrimination. You are not discriminating if you don’t date certain ages… that’s just a choice…. And it’s valid because of life stages and other factors. You’re not excluding someone from a job or somehow denying them something that is on offer to everyone, since a relationship is chosen on matching attributes. You don’t get unfair relationship ending tribunals etc…. The premise itself is ludicrous.

Anthropomorphism is attributing human attributes to something that does not have them, in this case, superimposing emotion upon words where there was none.

Discrimination is selecting and treating differently a group or an individual with certain traits, to others without those traits. Ergo if you choose to not date certain ages discriminating is EXACTLY what you're doing. It's the very definition!

If you choose to select group x as a demographic you do not wish to have contact with , that is by definition discrimination. You can call it boundaries within this environment and that works, but it's still discrimination. That's exactly what discrimination is! A cognitive choice based on identifying parameters.

Discrimination within contexts does not have to be a pejorative word. You can search within sets and subsets for example excluding all skinny jeans in a clothes hunt. I have absolutely no issue in setting those parameters regarding contacting people / stopping people contacting you, within this environment.

What I DO have an issue with is, as I've said, clearly, precisely, and now inordinate amount of times... The idea that.. you can block a whole set of people, by x y or x, from being able to message you, but YOU can still message them. How is that ok? That's like a woman deciding she doesn't want men to be able to contact her, but still wants the option to have the ability to drop tit pics into men's inboxes if she feels that urge! She's made a judgement call, which segregates who can and who can't message her, but she's not willing to apply the constraints to herself because she sees herself as beyond those constraints. She believes no man has anything she might want to hear said... But she thinks what she has to say must be allowed to be said irrespective of recipient.

If you wish to apply a set of discriminative boundaries to those who can message you, you too should be subject to that yourself, and should not be able to message that demographic. It's that simple.

[4R****]

 

4 minutes ago, Alistair1974 said:

What I DO have an issue with is, as I've said, clearly, precisely, and now inordinate amount of times... The idea that.. you can block a whole set of people, by x y or x, from being able to message you, but YOU can still message them.

Yeah, you do seem to love repeating yourself - it doesn't make your case any stronger. 

 

4 minutes ago, Alistair1974 said:

If you wish to apply a set of discriminative boundaries to those who can message you, you too should be subject to that yourself, and should not be able to message that demographic. It's that simple.

Well, that's not how the site works. So get over it! (It's that simple!)

 

 

 

 

[Fa****]

@Alistair1974 I found your initial message rude, condescending and showing a remarkable ability to not be able to understand any other persons point of view other than your own. And as I am the OP and the message was directed at me I can feel about it however I choose - unless you can further contextualise as to why your comment was so snarky. 

You have been given many reasons as to why I may wish to reach out to someone who falls outside of the filters I have set on MY messaging section. And to set the record straight I have said limits/filters due to the inane messages I was receiving from people in these ages ranges - generally rude or offensive. 

However, and here is the pertinent point, that DOES NOT prevent me from interacting with people who do not fit my messaging criteria through other mediums. And (shock horror) I/we may decide I/we wish to converse more privately. 

I (almost) get your point about it being discriminatory and unfair but you made it so rudely that all you’ve actually done is irritate many people. 

@Lady_Char  @Aranhis I appreciate you x

[Alistair1974]

1 hour ago, naughtynat said:

I really think discriminatory is a pretty strong word and you should reflect on what you’ve said. Maybe you come across as the bully and defensive…and no! You can’t steal my crown of saying the wrong thing in the wrong way, at the wrong time. I own it!

🤣🤣🤣

I wear it well 👑and it’s all mine haha. Chill out. These ladies were having a discussion. It’s really not that serious dude.

Hehe Nat.. I don't think I'm saying the wrong thing 😂 I also don't think I'm the one needing to chill out given two people decided to attempt a chunk of character assassination / misrepresentation just because I stood up for a really important point.. ?
I actually do think it's serious. How can I block you but then subsequently be able to still message you while you can't message me? That's horrible. If you block a person or subset.. for whatever reason, you should not be able to still message them without first unblocking them

[4R****]

2 minutes ago, Alistair1974 said:

 How can I block you but then subsequently be able to still message you while you can't message me? That's horrible. If you block a person or subset.. for whatever reason, you should not be able to still message them without first unblocking them

There's a really simple reason for having it set this way - it prevents an influx of messages from the general population but enables you to reach out to individuals that you might like to interact with.

Example: There's a woman local to me that I've been wanting to have a chat with for a while but I'd been unable to message because of her filters. We happened to get into conversation in the chat room and I mentioned this fact so she sent me a quick "Hi" as a message and now we are able to have a conversation in messages but she still has the protection from being inundated with messages from every random bloke on the site. 

It's not rocket science!

[ge****]

Oh the irony @Alistair1974 - as an experiment I just tried to send you a message, and guess what? It wouldn't allow me to due to...yep you guessed it folks....filters!!!
.
So seems those in glass houses and all that 🙄🤣

[Alistair1974]

5 minutes ago, gemini_man said:

Oh the irony @Alistair1974 - as an experiment I just tried to send you a message, and guess what? It wouldn't allow me to due to...yep you guessed it folks....filters!!!
.
So seems those in glass houses and all that 🙄🤣

I'm guessing you don't know what irony means? One too many Alannis morresthingy songs?

Again.. I've not said.. filters= bad. Where are you getting that from? I've said... Takes a breath... If you block someone you should not have the ability to then subsequently message them!

How hard is this to grasp?

[na****]

29 minutes ago, Alistair1974 said:

Hehe Nat.. I don't think I'm saying the wrong thing 😂 I also don't think I'm the one needing to chill out given two people decided to attempt a chunk of character assassination / misrepresentation just because I stood up for a really important point.. ?
I actually do think it's serious. How can I block you but then subsequently be able to still message you while you can't message me? That's horrible. If you block a person or subset.. for whatever reason, you should not be able to still message them without first unblocking them

🙄 It’s really that serious is it? Really? Maybe we’ve all had a little character assassination/misrepresentation on occasion. Reflect, learn and move on from it…you don’t need to submit a thesis about it to be fair 🤘🏻

[4R****]

Can we stay on topic:

The question was - If I have message filters set to exclude anyone outside of a specific age range, can I still message those who are outside of this age range and if I do can they reply?

 

The answer is Yes you can message them and yes you can reply. 

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by 4RCH

[ge****]

18 minutes ago, Alistair1974 said:

I'm guessing you don't know what irony means? One too many Alannis morresthingy songs?

Again.. I've not said.. filters= bad. Where are you getting that from? I've said... Takes a breath... If you block someone you should not have the ability to then subsequently message them!

How hard is this to grasp?

It's ironic because one of your points was that employing filters is "discriminatory" - so by using filters yourself you're using the discriminatory (your word not mine) behaviour yourself.

There's a vast difference between employing filters to prevent a specific group that you know you have no interest in from messaging you (which actually is a good thing for that group as it saves them wasting their time doing so) and an individual block against a specific person though.
.
Where a block is used neither the blocker or the blockee can send a message to the other which is as it should be.
.
Where a filter is used then the group filtered out can't message but the person using the filter has the ability to bypass that filter when they choose to, and may do so for any number of the valid reasons that have been given here.
.
Now you may have me filtered because I'm an old fart, or because I'm partial to a bit of cock, or any number of other reasons that you choose, and frankly I couldn't give a stuff that you do - but if you had a reason to contact me, for example for help with the treasure hunt threads I'm active on, but still wanted to keep the cock hungry over 50s out then I have absolutely no problem with that.
.
It's not discriminatory to minimise your likely messages from groups you generally have no interest in hearing from, nor is it disgusting and abhorrent to have the ability to bypass those filters should you wish.

[ge****]

2 minutes ago, 4RCH said:

Can we stay on topic:

The question was - If I have message filters set to exclude anyone outside of a specific age range, can I still message those who are outside of this age range and if they do can they reply?

 

The answer is Yes you can message them and yes you can reply. 

 

Agreed and that's been answered in the first response - nothing more needed

[Fa****]

@FETMOD-BD @FETMOD-ET sorry. I don’t know if I’ve tagged the correct people. Please can this thread be closed? My question was answered. Thanks

[FETMOD-BD]

[FETMOD-BD]

Agreed. I think this thread has run it's course - I'm locking it.

If you want to discuss the intricacies and morals of whether filters should be used or not - start a new thread!