5 hours ago, Moses said:

who will pay attention to all this "let's go" from a forum participant with less than 2 years of experience?

that's not nice. Why opinion of somebody with 2 years of experience would be worth more than one who arrived here 2 months or even 2 weeks ago ?

Being right or wrong rarely depends on seniority although I'd venture it may be a case in Binden vs. Trump but this  is for Americans to see

3 hours ago, unicorn said:

 But I don't think neither you nor Putin will be arrested. 😉

 

this is what tsar Nikolay II surely thought and perhaps Beria too about themselves

29 minutes ago, vinapu said:

that's not nice

Do I have to be nice to a stalker who follows me all over the forum with his finger glued to the button, not even missing the porn forum with AI pictures?

And who barks as if by a conditioned reflex, barely reading the word “Russian”? No thanks.

I'm as direct as a baseball bat with such people.

Crazy hysterical squirrel.

9 minutes ago, Moses said:

Do I have to be nice to a stalker who follows me all over the forum with his finger glued to the button, not even missing the porn forum with AI pictures?

 

you don't have to , agree,  My objection was to assumption that seniority somehow weighs in favour of somebody's opinion.

32 minutes ago, vinapu said:

Being right or wrong rarely depends on seniority

It is not about "right" or "wrong", it is about behavior and forum etiquette. 

1 hour ago, vinapu said:

you don't have to , agree,  My objection was to assumption that seniority somehow weighs in favour of somebody's opinion.

This surprises me somewhat, as I view you as objective and fair.

I did not see the member’s post as a comment about duration of membership somehow quantifying opinion merit. Seniority is not a valid chatroom construct. I saw it as a reaction to the temerity of a member with an undeveloped grasp of the board’s code of conduct.

Surely by the two year mark it is understood that you don’t utilize knowledge of somebody’s personal information, however obtained, in plotting and urging the board as a collective to sabotage a member’s livelihood, however dramatic a difference in world view associated with the explicit scheming. 

I would be blowing my lid off, spitting tacks, and I have no objection to any less than ideal phrasing the recipient of the threat may have employed.

Nobody should be backed into the position of rebuttal against the type of intimidation that a miscreant gratuitously introduced. Let’s please be clear about who is behaving poorly and is snubbing his nose at anybody calling him out as if he alone possesses impunity.

3 hours ago, Riobard said:

A few local newscasts termed the site a wooded grove, a far cry from, say, the northern boreal. Probably an unintended artefact of the language translation process. 

When communicating, one has to agree on a language and certain definitions. If one just defines words as what one imagines in one's head, chaos can ensue. The US actually defines a forest as having a minimum of 1 acre in size. While agree that this seems quite small, I can certainly abide by the UN definition which is 1/2 hectare. 

https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/definitions.cfm?i=51

Forest land. Land at least 120 feet wide and 1 acre in size with at least 10 percent cover (or equivalent stocking) by live trees of any size, including land that formerly had such tree cover and that will be naturally or artificially regenerated. Forest land includes transition zones, such as areas between forest and non-forest lands that have at least 10 percent cover (or equivalent stocking) with live trees and forest areas adjacent to urban and built-up lands. Roadside, streamside, and shelterbelt strips of trees must have a crown width of at least 120 feet and continuous length of at least 363 feet to qualify as forest land. Unimproved roads and trails, streams, and clearings in forest areas are classified as forest if they are less than 120 feet wide or an acre in size. Tree-covered areas in agricultural production settings, such as fruit orchards, or tree-covered areas in urban settings, such as city parks, are not considered forest land.

Right, the area within which this unfortunate incident took place does look “forest-y”. It seems to be situated within, bounded by, a fairly developed area. An unusual extended pattern of one or more barking domestic dogs apparently figured somewhat in alerting a local that something was amiss. As I wrote previously, I read the word ‘grove’ in one piece and ‘forest’ in another. I think, however, that a grove may be a few acres but would be lacking the extent of underbrush and other vegetation bridging the distance between the taller trees as seen in the images. 

An addition to the thread less tangential than has already occurred might be the nomenclature of a cake named after a wooded area that has a cherry orchard, cacao trees, and a cow pasture situated within it.

Attached are perpendicular vantage points at one corner of the space. 

19 hours ago, Moses said:

It is not about "right" or "wrong", it is about behavior and forum etiquette. 

 Like saying this stuff 👇

 

19 hours ago, Moses said:

I'm as direct as a baseball bat with such people.

Crazy hysterical squirrel.

 

7 minutes ago, floridarob said:

Like saying this stuff

Yes. Keyword is:

19 hours ago, Moses said:

with such people

 

12 hours ago, Moses said:

Yes. Keyword is:

On 3/14/2024 at 3:45 PM, Moses said:

with such people

So right and wrong, on your part just matters ....sometimes?

So the 10 Commandments would be better named the 10 Suggestions, the 10 Depends how I feel ...etc 🧐

3 hours ago, floridarob said:

So right and wrong, on your part just matters ....sometimes?

So the 10 Commandments would be better named the 10 Suggestions, the 10 Depends how I feel ...etc 🧐

The 10 items for discussion...