Simon

smh

If you go to the Advanced Search and set the last update search criteria far enough back, you'll be searching through the archives. The default search looks to anything updated (posted to) within the last year...which matches the archive conditions.

Yeah...it's doing both. If you're not seeing it, you're going to want to check your system's settings -- browser cache (how is that still a thing?), any script blockers, etc. The site is working as-designed.

Absolutely. There were a slew of cartoons out of Warner Bros. during the war years that served as one of the major propaganda arms for the US.

This whole thread orbits around something I've been trying to figure out....and I still don't know that I have it clear mentally, so the following is likely not going to come out entirely right (consider this an advanced apology...and I'll attempt to clarify as needed). Looking at some of the behaviors and depictions in old movies is VERY similar to looking at the behaviors and actions of certain individuals in recent press in regards to sexual abuse/predation. Context plays a large part, but intent seems to be a major factor that is not discussed either because it's considered irrelevant or is too "sticky"/difficult to address. By context, I'm referring primarily to the prevailing attitudes of the time. Ben Franklin owned slaves. So did most other wealthy Americans. It was part of that period of time. Not something that we want to celebrate, but neither is it something that we want to condemn people of that time for (IMO). To take a more current example, if 100 years from now some of the extreme arms of PETA have their way and owning an animal (say a dog or cat for a pet) is considered akin to slavery, I don't think that people today should be judged for that. People today should be judged based on today's societal and moral standards -- owning a pet is fine, but you need to treat it properly (care for it, feed it, etc.). This applies equally well for sexual harassment -- the prevailing attitude of the time needs to be part of the equation. That we have (hopefully) progressed in our current time from 50 or 100 years ago doesn't mean that we should judge people from prior times based on our current ideas -- their actions should be judged based on the times in which they were made. Which is where we run into intent...and things get really sticky. The intent behind an action (the production of a movie, physical contact with a member of the opposite sex, the publication of a book, etc.) should be considered strongly in any sort of "judgement" of that action. A three year old boy who kisses a girl in his kindergarten class on the cheek should not be accused of sexual harassment (IMO) -- there is no intent there. A CEO (or anyone in a position of authority) who pulls a subordinate in for a peck on the cheek is a different story. Blazing Saddles is a great example of one extreme, oddly enough. Its main theme is based around racism. White supremacy, racism, mysogeny, you name it -- all there. But the intent was to laugh at them...to mock them and hopefully grow past them through laughter. It's hard to take the movie as offensive or wrong (unless, of course, you sympathize with the white supremacy group). Warner Bros./Bugs Bunny through WWII had some remarkably racist themes. They were part of the propaganda push within the US. Without the context of WWII, they are extremely offensive. With proper context, they are (IMO) educational and enlightening as to what was going on in society at the time. Certainly not something that would personally feel is appropriate for kids on a Saturday morning (do they still do that?), but not something to be locked away or burned. Then there are movies that I've either intentionally avoided or simply not been subjected to due to my own preferences -- the ones that don't just portray hateful ideas/ideals, but promote them (without the excuse of historical context). The best examples I can think of here (again, I'm somewhat sheltered) are some of the earlier cartoons and their depictions of black people. They've generally been scrubbed from the airwaves at this point...and rightly so -- keep them for people researching history and society at those times, but they have little place for the general public.

Doesn't matter if you're quoting or not -- you're using the quick reply form at the bottom of the page. Replies will always go to the end of the thread, but having the page change from your current selection is non-ideal, so you'll need to just trust the "Saving..." and clearing of the form.

Let's go with "No." Just. Stop. You have a solution. Use it and move along.

Let's do this once more for posterity: I did not write the software for the forums. I am not interested in changing the code, "debugging" or anything else. The software for this site works just fine for Fortune 100 companies...I suspect it will do just fine for HERO Games. If you have a question about how the forums work (since there are a LOT of changes), that's fair game. If you think there's a bug, by all means ask...but if there is a perfectly reasonable "fix" suggested -- USE IT. Don't keep posting about your personal theories on how the code for the site is written and how it should be fixed. There is no "index.html" page for the site -- that is entirely handled via redirect in .htaccess file for the docroot, since the site resides in the /forums subdirectory (beneath docroot). That is not an invitation to figure out "what's wrong" with the current redirection scheme vis a vis auto-login -- it's simply an explanation of how things work and why those who are positing theories on what's going wrong "in the code" are out of their depth. Just do what works and move on.

Curious that you're trying to debug code that you've never seen...and which doesn't exist. You have a solution to the issue -- use it.

This. I'm firmly and completely in support of the push against sexual harassment (which has become endemic in our society)...but it needs to be tempered with due process and reason if it's going to avoid becoming the witch hunt that opponents have decried. Intent of the individual needs to be part of the equation...and yes, that makes things very (VERY) tricky. We also need to stop looking to equate or distract. It doesn't matter what Franken did (or what happens as a result) when looking to Moore. Or vice versa. They're two different people and two different incidents/allegations. If I go out and attack someone on the street, I don't get to point to someone else and say "they did it, too" as some sort of defense for my actions. What I (personally) think should happen: Franken should go before the ethics committee (which he himself has recommended). They will determine the severity of his actions and appropriate measures to be taken in response. Unless something radical changes in the story, it is likely that he will have consequences (censure, removal from committees, etc.) and either resign of his own choosing or have major issues in the next election (resulting in much the same). This is the type of response that we expect and want to see -- our elected officials are being held to a high standard (or should be) and are accountable for their actions both during and before their terms of office. Moore needs to have the same thing occur...but he's currently in an election process. It would be best for his party (and Congress in general) for him to drop out. Pushing forward presents a decidedly negative appearance for the GOP in regards to their response to sexual harassment. Should he continue in the election, the GOP needs to take a very strong stand on the issue -- he's essentially forcing their hand. They've more or less done this within Congress (though nothing from Trump). Should he manage to win the election, then the ethics committee and Congress in general need to become involved, likely resulting in his ouster. Any other course of action for either individual gives credence to the "other side" when they try to distract/detract from a given situation by pointing fingers.

Sounds like you have a bit of a dilemma, then.

Don't embed videos in spoilers?

No idea what you're talking about....all examples you posted are fine.

Once again (for posterity): there are a LOT more options. From following people (and receiving notifications when they post), to following forums, news articles, products, receiving notifications when your name is mentioned, etc. All configurable under notification settings. Any email received contains a link to the specific notification setting that generated it (in the event that you want to change it).

Options were toggled based on software defaults. "I deleted all the e-mails without reading one" is on you. Yes, I am frustrated that you seem to expect others to take care of things for you and continue complaining and questioning when it's pointed out (repeatedly) that you can and should handle it on your own.

In short: no - that's on him to do. It's basic site usage -- If you're getting unwanted notifications, adjust your notifications settings (what I told you to do early on). It even states this in EVERY EMAIL THAT IS SENT.

Unfollowing will work. OR (and maybe this is just me) you could listen to what I said earlier and turn off notifications for people that you follow: That's your screen, btw. Not a glitch in the system, your own settings. Rather than remembering to change notification settings every time you reply, you could (again) take the advice I gave earlier and change your settings.

In particular, you have only two topics that you follow (both in the NGD), but a slew of members that you're following. With your current notification settings, you'll receive emails and site notifications anytime one of the members that you're following posts, replies to one of your posts, makes a status update, or does just about anything on the site.

You have absolutely everything checked under the notifications settings (I just went into your account). You'll get notifications and emails when posts you follow are replied to, when forums you follow are replied to, when people you follow post, etc. If you don't want those, turn off the appropriate settings.

He received a mild rebuke (in thread) and reacted...poorly. He was treated no differently than anyone else.

Look harder.

Likely the search indices rebuilding -- it's working fine now. Make sure that you're searching at the right level -- using the search bar within a specific forum will search only that forum. Using the search bar at the top level forum listing will default to searching all forums.

It has nothing to do with cookies, or anything else under the site's control. It is entirely an issue with your system's configuration.

Look in the Activity Streams for that -- and note that you can create your own activity stream if any of the presets don't work for you.

Check your account settings.... particularly the notifications settings.