BurtW,
Don't waste your time responding to people that are participating in a sig ad campaign. They generally don't read the content of the thread, and make a minimal effort to even guess what the thread is even about. Then they drop in an "opinion" so that it looks like they are making an actual contribution to conversation so that they can collect their pay from the ad campaign manager.
They don't really care what the thread is about, nor do they have any interest in any facts or details. Responding to them just gives them an opportunity to blindly respond to your response to get additional posts in and make it look like they are participating in a conversation.
You're more likely to get well thought out logical discussions from a Colorado District Attorney than you are from someone participating in a signature ad campaign.
Yes, I know. But sometime I, we all, get frustrated when we spend a large amount of time telling people what
is and it gets buried under the whole signature campaign thing.
not sure if you will see this or not, but as a participant in a sig campaign I think bulk blocking all sig campaign participants is a little extreme.
I posted for a long time before finding one to join, and will continue posting after the campaign ends.
I legitimately try to post strictly to the topic at hand, as I have here (aside from this). I see what you say about a lot of low quality posting going on, but mass blocking doesn;t seem conducive to actual conversation.
Yes, of course, not everyone abuses the sig campaigns. I actually used to have one, Bitmixer if I recall, and maybe SWC back in the day. I choose now to use that space for my own agenda but might someday use it again to raise some funds.
I really appreciate the way you see this whole signature campaign thing... there are loads of people who misuse the chance they get to earn a little extra money to post constructively on this forum.
I quickly spot them, and ignore them when I browse the threads... I do not add them to a ignore list, because they might have something constructive to say in other threads.
DannyHamilton is a bit extreme in his approach to this, but I respect his needs and I still value his inputs even though I am also added on his shit list. He is a excellent
contributor to this forum and I learn a lot from his contributions, even though I do not support the way he approach this whole signature campaign thing.
As a member of this forum, you still have the option to join whatever service is offered here... if that voids your opinion in some members eyes.. so be it.. they have rights too. {Like having a spam free experience}
I like to contribute and share what I have learned here and on other platforms and to learn from people like DannyHamilton.... if I get a little extra for my effort.. why not..
it's my time and my kids enjoy the extra pocket money I give to them, for the stuff I do here, when I am away from them.
BurtW... Did they reveal any methods or sources to you, on how they gathered evidence against you? Surely most of this evidence should have been acquired through
legal methods like subpoena and not through entrapment? { I did not see anything mentioned on this, from your other main thread on this subject? }
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/24/we-need-geneva-convention-for-the-internet-says-new-un-privacy-chief