Last name of "Suicide" - The Poll

That type of product placement is of value to LL - they are the ones placing a value on it and determining what it is worth in return. I charge for advertising on SLU - it does not mean I am not free to establish alternative deals with people when it is mutually beneficial to both of us. For example, providing banner advertising to someone in lieu of being charged rent on a store. They could easily pay me for the banner ad and I could easily pay for rent, but instead we traded something of value. I also give free advertising for non-profit charity events. This is not a deal that is available to everyone, but it does not mean it is not my right to offer it with my own business.

In the case of the SG site, LL could have paid for product placement, and the SG site could have paid for the land in SL, but instead they worked out an arrangement that was beneficial to both. Again, business 101 whether you "buy" it or not.

PS - I still want to know what supposedly sexist statement I made.

*peeps from behind another boulder watching the flame fest with interested but sleepy eyes*

It's 2:00am here so please forgive me if I don't make sense.

I made a mistake on the voting poll and picked 2. I was supposed to pick on I don't find the name 'Suicide' offensive and I don't mind seeing it in game thingy.

Now before anybody starts hitting me, I'd like to make it clear that for me, being offensive means that the word is 'rude,' or 'degrading' ina general sense. Names like CumShots, SuckMyCock, Bitch, AsianHick, AfricanSlave. etc those kind of names.

Names like Suicide, Cancer, Murder, etc do not affect me as much. Now why should it? Given that I am living with my mom and taking care of her who is stage 4 Cancer (breast mestatized to the lungs and bone), one of my highschool buddies committed suicide five years ago, one guy from my college was murdered by his military officer three years ago so then, must my delicate sensibilities dictate I must take offense on every Tom, Dick and Harry that uses Suicide, Cancer, Murder, Army. etc as part of an internet handle or some kind of weird nickname? Must I call the newspaper and the tv station to stop using those words? Will I fall into a helpless fit of whimpering everytime I read an internet article about Suicide or Cancer or Murder? I don't, and I don't think I shall anytime soon. Yes, I know that these words, strike a very personal and painful cord to me but that doesn't mean I'll be striking them out from my vocubulary much less someone else's.

For me, a name is not offensive, unless the person who owns it is offensive. People can call themselves whatever they want, label themselves for whatever reason they want, but in the end, for me, their actions will speak more about themselves than their name ever will. I'm not sure about everyone else but this is true to me.

On the issue regarding the SG girls getting perks/privelegs. I won't bother with that, said point on last thread. Other people explained too. Will not repeat what said earlier. Me thinks it's clear enough. Not understand, not my problem.

I'm starting to speak like a caveman. Me need sleepy. Mew. Goodnight.

We don't know what arrangement was worked out, do we?

And Business 101 tells me that this bit of PR can backfire, and has, at least in my case.

coco

P.S. I know you do! lol Sorry to tease you, Cristiano. I want you to figure it out.

Okay. So...

1. ...you don't know and can't provide support for your comment.

2b. ...you're basing comments on appearances and not facts.

1 (repeated) ...you don't know and can't provide support for your comment.

2a. ...you don't know and can't provide support for your comment.

3. ...could you please provide numbers to support this claim: "a lot of people seem to think this is just girls running their own thing and being empowered as a result."? Thank you.

4. ...apparently you missed MY point. Please demonstrate that you understand how a "non-profit" company can provide a huge windfall to its officers and still be listed as a non-profit (this should be easy, after all, even charities have come under fire for paying executives exhorbitant salaries and providing them with "perks". Once you do that, please explain why this is of any concern or interest to anyone including yourself. Thank you.

5. ...given your comment - "They are perks - freebies - things that others either pay to have or cannot get at all" - please explain to everyone, including Linden Lab, how to conduct and manage a business since obviously you believe that Linden Lab is not receiving anything of value in return. We certainly can't allow a for-profit company like LL to give things away without expecting some kind of return! Thank you.

6. ...what you're saying here - "However, you're correct, anyone could have written that" - is that you were in error in making that factual statement as one of your "points".

6/7 ...if I understand you correctly, what you're saying here - "According to me, obviously. As I said in the intro, I was summing up my points." - is that you make uninformed, unsupported and sometimes blanket statements about a situation as seen through your own personal and subjective point of view, and then share them as being relevant and factual for everyone reading? Are you implying that when you said in your intro: "To sum up my points, since we have gotten so far off the track and all over the map with this" you had license to distort the truth about what is fact and what is conjecture and, in effect, deceive not just yourself but those who read your "points"? If so, may I politely ask that you more clearly define which is which. Simply saying "my points" is grossly insufficient and misleading in my opinion.

You talk a lot, Csven. I've made my points. Take em or leave em.

Or disprove them.

coco

I've already pointed out - and you've agreed - that your factual statements are based on nothing more than your own biased assumptions. Suggesting I "disprove them" is implying that there is anything to disprove (and is an extraordinarily silly reply)

You talk a lot too, except you say nothing of worth, so I'll leave them.

Yes, I do talk a lot, so I regret having said that. What I should have said is that I believe you are arguing with me excessively.

coco

Two to tango?

No?

Or all the other person's fault, for daring to question your insultive and assumptive moral judgements?

Wait - don't answer that - not necessary.

I believe it was Csven, asking me to speak to his questions, and more than once. I've done so, and I think I've done enough now in the way of presenting my position. I believe it amounts to Csven would like to discuss these finer points more than I would.

coco

It's none of YOUR business. Drop it.

You know what they say: "God is in the details."

(or is that "The Devil"?)

Perhaps next time you should post your special list and make it clear you don't want anyone to question your subjective points. It's common forum etiquette that when someone posts something - as you did - that others are invited to comment.

Csven, I have answered your posts, and done so civilly, more than once, and did so as helpfully as I could so you could see where I am coming from. I simply don't think anything further can be gained from it, since we seem to be going around in circles.

coco

P.S. It's the devil.

No one is compelling you to entertain his thoughts or questions.

But then you know that.

Ahh, the beginning stages of self-victimization - great fun to watch the sequence - yet again.

The only one's outstanding are:

#4 and #5 - where you seem to have missed the point

#6/7 - which you seem to be avoiding because it points out your being evasive.

Furthermore, I never questioned your civility. Are you somehow attempting to compare and - more importantly - contrast our posts? In effect, suggesting that I'm being less than civil? That does appear to be the purpose for you pointing out what anyone would obviously expect.

Now, should I list "My Point"? It might take that appearance and restate it subjectively as: "Cocoanut attacked me and called me uncivil". Is that fair? And if not, why not since you excuse yourself for doing this very thing.

So, since words aren't supposed to mean anything anymore does this mean I can start calling people Crackers? That is really one of my favorite words and I have been holding back because I didn't want to hurt anyone.

See you narrow minded insensitive I'maNerdThatLooskLikeHiroSoITryToBeCoolOnline Crackers in world!

I think the last name Suicide is stupid, and really unnecessary. This reminds me of Ulrika's tacky and ignorant suicide joke (lucky that evil bitch is gone), so yeah I am in the possibly offended category. Should the name be available? Sure. This is the internet, asshats are easily ignored. I like that people are given just enough freedom to proved they are stupid fuckers not worth you time, so don't have to be bothered getting to know them to find out they are stupid fuckers not worth your time.

That's true, Nolan. But since we were having a discussion, and since Csven was polite, I like to be polite in return and answer the ideas posed to me.

There's a point at which the discussion starts to go nowhere, though, and I think I've reached it.

coco

How come ALTs can vote too?

Right so take 5 or 6 posts to tell us so.

No, I didn't mean to call you uncivil. (As you can see by my above post.

I'm trying to say - I've made my points, I've listened to yours, and I think we are at the end of it. At least, I am.

Let's wait and see what more we find out - or don't find out - and we can go at it again.

coco

It depends on the circumstance the phrase is referring to. If you are saying that something will be revealed by looking more closely at something (especially something negative or untruthful), then it is "the Devil is in the details" - meaning the lie is caught. The phrase is "God is in the details" when talking about the marvel of small things - the differences of each snowflake, the petals of a flower, etc... - as if you are seeing God when looking at these small, wonderous things.

Just wanted to clear that up

As far as my supposedly sexist statement, the only things I see that you could potentially claim were sexist was my saying that women and men also objectify men also, or that I think women are likely more harmed by the effects of working in porn than men. Neither is a sexist statement - I am granting equal weight to the behavior of men and women, and acknowledging the additional stigma that women have to deal with regarding sex.

Obviously that is my mistake, Nolan, for responding to you at all.

coco

because alts are people too. Plus they can post...and this is not determining the outcome of a presidential election. Then it would surely be rigged.

Because they are entiled to first land, duh!

Bingo! And it was just one; I don't believe I said it was two.


I agree. With both thoughts.

And I was acknowledging in my supposedly sexist statement the fact that it isn't too surprising that a bunch of guys might be happy for a Linden deal that brought the SG girls here.

coco

"Supposedly"?


1) You completely ignore that many, many women have posted similar sentiments to that of some of the men you're so focused on. Not suprised though, given precedent.

2) You simply cannot grasp that some men may have legitmate thoughts on the topic, that aren't tainted by carnal desire.