BootmanLA

Just to be clear, you're asking people for instructions on how to bypass legal copyright protection on a website in order to make an illegal copy of material you don't own. Correct? I don't think that publicly stating those kinds of intentions is particularly wise.

Bumping this up with an additional "bug" (that again probably can't be dealt with). Even with every box checked for the "ignore user" for a name, those users' status updates still show in the "Recent Status Updates" section of the main forum page. And there are some whose status updates, while *technically* probably within the rules of this forum, are so offensive that if I saw the person in real life, I'd punch the everloving shit out of them, just on general principle. I'd be happy to ignore them so I don't have to see their obnoxious bullshit, but the tools provided here do not cover that. This, unlike the previously reported problem, should be easy for the developers to fix, if they cared. It's a simple condition to add to the query that retrieves the most recent status updates. Despite my fondness for the color blue, however, I'm not holding my breath waiting.

"The economy" is not the same thing as the stock market. Barely half of Americans have any stock holdings at all, and for the vast majority, it's a small amount held as part of an IRA or 401(k). 84% of the stock market's value is held by the top 10% of Americans (by wealth). Focusing on the stock market only means that the richest of the rich keep getting richer. And remember: when gifted with over a trillion dollars in tax cuts, what did all the big companies do? Buy back their stock, which drives up the price per share, and makes those who hold it even richer. So Donald Trump's government gave away more than a trillion dollars to make the richest of the rich even more rich. What matters most to the vast majority of people are (a) salary/wage income - which was stagnant in real terms for decades - and (b) home equity, because a home is the single most valuable asset most families have, IF they have one. Unfortunately, thanks to the LAST recession brought on by Republican policies of under-regulation, the housing bubble that burst in 2008-09 has yet to recover completely in many places, and many people stand no chance whatsoever of ever being able to buy a house. One thing that IS "the economy" is the jobs market. All the Trumpanzees want to stop the jobs clock as of February 2020, as though the last six months never happened. But they did - and even though we're recovering some of the 21 MILLION jobs lost in March and April of 2020, we're nowhere near the employment level that Donald Trump inherited in January 2017 after seven years of growth under Obama. In fact, even if we keep recovering jobs at the current pace - and that's assuming another wave of the Trump Virus doesn't sweep the country and force another round of shutdowns - Trump will be the first president in history to show a net jobs LOSS for his entire presidency.

If I actually believed that the typical unsolicited cock pic sent was (a) actually of the guy sending it and (b) he was seriously interested in using it with me, I might feel differently. But somewhere north of 90% of the ones I receive that way are from guys a thousand miles away or more.

I don't think there is any way to quantify the risk, as in "You have a 27.4% chance of....". In this case, here's the thing. You see a sore, but you don't know whether it's herpes or not. If it is, you have at least a moderate risk of contracting it. If it's not, obviously you don't. If it matters, ask. Ask in general terms ("I prefer full disclosure - do you have any STIs, so that I can plan accordingly?"). Your plan may include declining to fuck him if he says "Oh yeah, I have herpes and it seems to always be acting up." Of course, you can't know if he's telling the truth if he says he has none. So as long as you know this MIGHT be a herpes sore and he MIGHT be experiencing an outbreak and you MIGHT get infected if you do fuck -- then make your decision accordingly.

Not everything, no. If the first message I get from someone is, say, unlocking a bunch of nude pictures, I don't care how hot they are, I'm very unlikely to respond. And yes, I do (or rather, would do) the same thing to flashers in public face-to-face. I'd be tempted to point and laugh, but today that might get me shot. Muggers are human beings attempting to interact, too, but I don't believe they deserve a response any more than Mr. Virtual Flasher. I don't mind crude, but if the first message is something both crude AND demonstrates he hasn't read my profile, then I typically don't answer, unless a very curt and blunt answer would work better, e.g. HIM: Wanna fuck my ass? ME: Not in the slightest. If someone sends me a compliment, I say thank you. If I see something to be complimented in return, I do that. Sometimes it's a compliment on something physical, sometimes it's something nicely phrased in his profile; sometimes we have a common interest and I'll mention that. Sometimes it's even just "I've never been to X region, but I'm hoping to get there someday to see Y." If there's literally nothing in the profile I find even remotely appealing, even as a potential friend, then I typically add "that's very kind of you." And I'll repeat that if he starts getting assertive about his interest, until it's hopefully clear I'm being nice but declining. (If he's nice, and then asks for something directly, I'll respond politely but directly as well - "No, thank you, but again it's kind of you to ask.")

Obviously, if a black man enjoys playing up racial stereotypes as part of the play, by all means, there's no reason not to indulge each other that way. You're wise to hold off talking about it unless/until he brings it up. The problem, as I see it, is the innumerable white guys who don't seem to grasp that many black men do NOT want to be reduced to, and objectified as, "a big black cock", and the incessant dropping of the BBC phrase into casual conversation reminds me of old white guys in my youth (in the 60's) casually talking about nigger this and nigger that. They were shocked if you called them on it - "I don't mean anything by that!" - because they, as always, had held the power in those situations and it never occurred to them that those without the power to really object might be offended.

Many geo-location dating/hookup apps limit the resolution to several hundred feet precisely to prevent that kind of thing. Otherwise, you could have stalker crazies tracking down someone via the app and targeting them for harassment, injury, or death. One app I'm familiar with limits the resolution to 2/10ths of a mile, or a little over 1,000 feet. It may be possible, particularly in rural areas or suburbs with large lots, to figure someone out. But in a denser-populated city you might not even be able to resolve which building someone's in, or possibly not even which side of the block. I'm not sure all such apps do that, but from a liability perspective, they probably should.

What's mind-blowingly dumb is our president. (Also mind-blowingly corrupt and mind-blowingly criminal.) For those who aren't following along because they're through the looking-glass in MAGAland, the president's on tape telling Bob Woodward how deadly the coronavirus is, far more deadly than the flu, and how devastating a disease it is, at the same time he was publicly telling the country it was fewer than 20 cases that all came out of China and it would soon be zero. The tapes also document how he learned the seriousness of the disease from Xi Jinping, the same Chinese leader he publicly castigates for lying about "the China Virus". And now the president says he didn't want to "panic" Americans, so he lied. This is the president who bleated incessantly about the "massive caravans" of illegal immigrants that were headed for our borders, just waiting to come in hauling drugs and raping and killing all the white women. The president who still rants and rages about all the looting and vandalism (of which there isn't that much, but....) and says he's the only one who can prevent it, even though he's clearly not preventing it very well right now and he's the president. None of this should be surprising because this is exactly how Trump has always operated, from the day he started working for his father. It's all bluster, and misdirection, and overreaching, and self-promotion, all to appear to be something more than what he is. And what he is is a failed, many-times bankrupt businessman who couldn't even make money running a casino in a market that was highly favorable to casinos. A developer who inherited and/or was gifted hundreds of millions of dollars from his father, and managed to build that up into a debt-ridden enterprise kept afloat by Russian mob money laundered through Deutsche Bank. He could have taken the money from his family, invested it in an index fund, and done better than his supposed "genius" development skills produced. His sole genius consists of convincing working-class, ordinary people that he's somehow looking out for them while lining his own pockets as fast as he can shove taxpayer and political contribution money into them.

Thanks! I figured not, but wanted to make sure. Happy to be proactive in not seeing content I don't want to see (when it comes routinely from particular individuals) but didn't want to jeopardize any "status level" in doing so.

It's not the Olympics. There is no published rule book on how to calculate scores. That said, the title is "2020 Load Tally". If one guy gives you two loads, either the same day or on widely separated days, I'd say that by definition counts as two loads.

This may clarify something for people. The US FDA approves "on-label" uses for prescription medications, but only for the United States. And it's our FDA that has, so far, deemed daily PrEP the only "on-label" prescription method. That doesn't stop regulatory authorities in other countries (whether in the UK, Europe, or whatever) from approving different prescribing situations. I realize that US-centric statements may not apply elsewhere in the world.

Hover over the link that represents a member's name - either at the top of a post, or somewhere similar - and a popup window will appear. There's a box to check "Ignore User"; if you check that, the main page will shift to the "Ignored Members" page and ask you to (a) specify which types of info you want to ignore about the user (Posts, Messages, Signature, Mentions) and then (b) confirm to ignore that member. I called it "blocking" earlier, but technically it's called "Ignoring".

Duly noted. I'll add - the point about cost is something I specifically mentioned; obviously, if you can't afford daily dosing (lack of insurance, insurance doesn't cover it, etc.) then economizing is necessary. But as you note, that's not an ideal situation for someone planning a spate of being a cumdump. It sucks, I'm sure - I do not want to downplay that. But there are only so many options.

I meant to focus on this, too, and forgot. So you're opposed to the United States of America? Because, I hate to let you know this, since you apparently missed American History in high school, but that's exactly what the United States is. At the end of the Revolutionary War, there were thirteen individual, sovereign states. They first agreed to form a very limited alliance, under a document titled (and now known as) the "Articles of Confederation." When that proved unworkable, most (not all) of the states sent delegates to a convention in Philadelphia to draft some changes; instead, the delegates chose to draft an entirely new written "Constitution" to submit to the legislatures of all the states. And even THAT constitution - the one we have now, as amended twenty-seven times since - recognizes that each of the states is a sovereign entity, having yielded some, but not all, of that sovereignty to the federal government. In other words, the EU is essentially the United States of Europe. If it's such a horrible idea for them, do you think it's a horrible idea for us?

Actually, your response (by the way, your tinfoil hat is slipping) is full of misinformation. Many politicians and political figures have died of Covid, including a representative in my own state, and many, many more have been diagnosed but recovered. Some corporate giants have seen increased profits (e.g. Amazon) while others (eg airlines, hotels, oil companies) have been severely impacted. The overall stock market has zero to do with the actual performance of the economy, and most especially the DJIA means little. No, Bolton did not "prove" anything false. He says he didn't hear Trump say those things when he was on the trip. Bolton would not have been with Trump every minute of the trip; in fact, he's well documented as having been in side meetings for a goodly portion thereof. Also, Bolton's book came out long before the Atlantic article, so unless you've discovered a new form of time travel (in which case I suggest you patent it quickly), the book could not disprove the article. Period. As for "anonymous sources": you clearly do not understand how those work, particularly with a magazine that has standards, like The Atlantic. Perhaps the comic books (sorry, "graphic novels"), blogs, Q-Anon websites, and other "information sources" on which you rely for "news" may allow that sort of thing, but a publication like the Atlantic requires reporters to provide multiple confirmations for its sources and those confirmations are available to the editors who decide whether to publish any given piece. I can assure you that multiple people within The Atlantic know exactly who those sources are. And I repeat: not one senior defense official has come forward to deny the accounts. None. The US military wouldn't hesitate to denounce a fabricated source in a case like this; their silence is a strong validation that the article is true. As is the fact that Trump slipped up and called the sources for the articles "leakers". You don't make something up and then leak it; it's only a leak if it was said, secretly, and then someone blabbed. But it's good to know you think so little of the men and women who fight for our country. You simultaneously want us to take on China and yet you denounce the military that will be undoubtedly called on to defend American interests against them some day. And I don't care whether you have a hard-on for the guy. The fact that you think he's better than the other four presidents you cited tells me what I need to know.

I forgot this gem, above. Trump's "decreasing taxes" will actually result in a tax INCREASE for many lower-end taxpayers, in a few years (because our tax cuts are temporary while the ones for big business and the mega rich are permanent). And they blew a 2 trillion hole in the extended budget because Trumpanzees, like most Republicans, cling to the fiction that reducing taxes somehow improves governmental finances. That of course was before his mismanagement of the Trump Coronavirus blew another trillion-plus hole in government finances. And jobless rate? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA That's not laughing at the unemployed. That's laughing at any moron who thinks that having hit, back in April, the highest unemployment rate since the fucking Great Depression is a "falling jobless rate". He inherited, in January 2017, an unemployment rate of 4.8% - below what used to be considered "full employment" at 5% (to account for normal job turnover, etc.). He managed to get that down to 3.6% by January 2020 - a whole whopping 1.2% decline in joblessness - before his disastrous (and re-election-driven) mismanagement of the Trump Virus caused that rate to skyrocket up to 14.7 percent. That's FORTY PERCENT higher than the WORST month under Obama, at the worst point in the Bush 43 Great Recession. One could argue, if one wanted, that Trump's very minor troop reductions (most of which have just been shifting troops around the globe) are a good thing. One could argue (if one were an idiot) that repeatedly pissing off and insulting all of our allies is savvy foreign policy, even though we're likely to need those allies to help deal with threats here and there around the world. But to argue that this train wreck of an economy, where we've had 20 weeks this year where FIRST TIME unemployment claims were over one million (we'd never had a SINGLE month with that many, until Trump, much less twenty) is beyond laughable.

We're on track to have 400,000 dead Americans by Inauguration Day. "Average to successful presidency" my fucking ass. Here's the thing that ought to kill his campaign, right here, right now, and yet it won't, because yes, a huge portion of his supporters are a basket of deplorables. The man told John Kelly, standing next to Kelly's son's grave in Arlington Cemetery, that "he didn't get it - what was in it for him?". The man said that the graves at Belleau Wood were filled with losers who got themselves killed instead of, I guess, claiming bone spurs. The man said a US Senator, who endured five years of torture as a POW in a North Vietnamese prison cell because he refused to be released earlier than any other prison who had been there as long or longer than he had, wasn't a war hero because "He got captured. I like people who don't get captured." And for all the Trumpanzees who will rise up and hysterically claim Trump couldn't have said such things: The final one is on videotape. We all saw it. The only people who have denied he said the other statements are PR flacks whose job depends on claiming Trump didn't say those things. One of them, Sarah Hillbilly Sanders, is a documented liar who admitted under oath to Robert Mueller that she made up things to tell the press while she was press secretary knowing they were false. Not ONE high-ranking military officer - not John Kelly (former Chief of Staff and Secretary of DHS), not James Mattis (former Secretary of Defense), not Joseph Dunford (former chairman of the Joint Chiefs). None of the recent acting Secretaries of Defense (Patrick Shanahan, Richard Spencer). Not even the current Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. NOBODY of rank will say that Trump didn't say those things, and none of them will say he COULDN'T have said those things. And we know why.

I understand y'all can't be too specific about how the scoring/rating system works here for membership (because you don't want people gaming the system, etc.). But is it possible to find out whether certain actions will NOT affect your score? Specifically, blocking large numbers of members?

I wish I could upvote, thank, and like this post all at the same time.

As much as I love Chrome (I use it as my primary browser, on Windows) it's updated so frequently and behind the scenes that extension developers frequently are behind the ball in patching to match. I suspect you're correct as to the cause.

It would probably help the staff track this down if you mention what platform & browser you're using (ie Windows 10 with Edge, Windows 8 with Chrome, Mac OS with Safari, etc.). And if you have a secondary browser you could test the site in - and obviously, make sure you're logged in - it might help verify if it's a problem with your particular browser or session.

What's in that first section just past "Forums", where "Chat" should be? It's got the right icon for chat; maybe your browser window has shrunk slightly and it's reacting by replacing the word "Chat" with "..."?

I rarely downvote. But when I do, it's usually to express disapproval that goes well beyond disagreement. For instance, if one member attacks another in ways that look like they're edging up against the rules, or breaking them, I may not only report them but downvote (so that even if the guy "skates" on a rules infraction, there's still some record of my concern).

If you're on a computer: In the upper left corner of the page, click on your user name, and in the drop-down that opens, choose "Account Settings". Then in the left-hand column, choose "E-mail Address" and follow the instructions there.