Why am I not allowed to talk about making money?

Kyle Hewitt · Post by **Kyle Hewitt** » 19 Dec 2005 20:54

habitat wrote:not to be a total dick, but I could care less what people think of me on this matter. I AM right, modified is no place for this, who seriously thinks that it is? Why hasn't this whole topic been deleted and Brad temp banned for defience?

For some reason you think that the discussion forum is for money making schemes, are you retarded?!?! It's for politics, opinions, and news. Mods please delete this thread, thanks.

If you said this in the first place I would of agreed with you and would you kindly explain how modified is "gay"? next time be smart and use a word like "lame" or "sucks" please

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 19 Dec 2005 22:09

I think the current topic of discussion is pretty pointless. It seems clear that most people on the forum agree with the way this issue was handled (good work Ken!) and you really seem to be discussing pretty meaningless and pedantic parts of the arguement.

The reason this topic is still open is for a couple of reasons.

1. The mod/admin team doesn't want to make judgement calls based on the quality of topics. With out the people who post on a forum the forum would not exist and as such if people want to discuss a topic no matter how meaningless then you are free to do that. I also personally would be very much opposed to locking or deleting topics such as this one that criticise the way the forum is run - even if I don't agree with the arguement put forward I think we should definitely have a forum where people are completely free to criticise the forum, the moderators and their policies.

2. I was hoping that people would discuss the actual topic at hand which is: "Why aren't you allowed to use the forum to make money". Obviously there are times when people do use the forum to make money - in particular with footbag related products such as videos and footbags. Where should the line be drawn where topics trying to make money are banned? Does it depend who raises the topic? What should be the responce from the forum? I'd like to see people's opinions on these more general kind of questions rather than the specific case that just happened.

One of the things that annoys me with modified and all internet forums for that matter is people's inability to ignore stupid or pointless topics. Ideally when somebody starts a topic that says "make millions with this easy money making scheme" people would just ignore it and not comment. If you go and look at all the topics on modified that I haven't personally commented in - it's because I either looked at the topic name and wasn't interested or I read the topic and felt I had nothing to say to add to the discussion - probably because I thought it was a fairly pointless discussion. But it's clear that my personal way of dealing with topics like the original deleted topic (which I didn't see) is not the best approach for the forum because lots of people do comment on topics just to say that they're pointless etc. and probably the forum is better without them - I don't actually care because I don't read them. What if the person starting that topic was Erik Chan instead of Brad Mills? Erik is one of the founding members of modified - would that make a difference? What if it was Peter Irish - somebody who doesn't post that often on modified but is an immensly respected person in the footbag community. You might think this is pretty hypothetical (where's my magic carpet?) but early this year (or maybe last year) a fairly respected member of the modified and footbag communities posted a topic advertising cheap printer cartridges. Is that ok or should that be banned too? What if I started a new completely legit business selling organic fertiliser? Would it be ok for me to advertise that on the website? Last year I think I gave a big plug to a friends photography website - which is made to make a profit. The guy who runs that website is also a fantastic supporter of footbag in Australia and one of the pioneers of the sport here. In this case I wasn't going to make any money from advertising his site - I was just really impressed with it.

I would say that the issue raised is a lot more complex than the single case that actually happened and I'd like to encourage people to discuss the general topic and get over the specific case which has been dealt in my opinion and doesn't really need to be discussed any more. Of course if you really want to keep beating the dead horse then nobody will stop you - it's just boring and a waste of everybodies time. If I was worried about wasting time I probably wouldn't have over 5000 posts on this forum...

Anz · Post by **Anz** » 20 Dec 2005 00:43

So that's how American economics work...

GG

habitat · Post by **habitat** » 20 Dec 2005 01:04

Anssi Sundberg is gay, end of story

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » 20 Dec 2005 02:09

habitat wrote:Anssi Sundberg is gay, end of story

I stand on the same stuff as vin. The words "retard" and "gay" arent deragatory terms. I had a autistic little brother and some of my best friends are homosexuals. I think you should learn that it offends people, maybe if you werent so insecure with your sexuality you wouldnt be using "gay" as a deragatory term. Or maybe if you had a autsitic little brother you would know how it is when people say "retard"

Kyle Hewitt · Post by **Kyle Hewitt** » 20 Dec 2005 13:30

Nightmare wrote:
habitat wrote:Anssi Sundberg is gay, end of story
I stand on the same stuff as vin. The words "retard" and "gay" arent deragatory terms. I had a autistic little brother and some of my best friends are homosexuals. I think you should learn that it offends people, maybe if you werent so insecure with your sexuality you wouldnt be using "gay" as a deragatory term. Or maybe if you had a autsitic little brother you would know how it is when people say "retard"

I 100% agree with you thank you for proveing a damn good point!

habitat · Post by **habitat** » 21 Dec 2005 01:25

James Randall is gay

and thanks for playing

professor · Post by **professor** » 21 Dec 2005 03:52

Nightmare wrote:I stand on the same stuff as vin. The words "retard" and "gay" arent deragatory terms. I had a autistic little brother and some of my best friends are homosexuals. I think you should learn that it offends people, maybe if you werent so insecure with your sexuality you wouldnt be using "gay" as a deragatory term. Or maybe if you had a autsitic little brother you would know how it is when people say "retard"

So are you saying they are or aren't deragatory terms??? And how would him being insecure with his sexuality cause him to use the word gay??? Basically, your post was confusing.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 21 Dec 2005 04:02

I think he meant that they shouldn't be used as derogatory terms. And that his use of the word gay was a result of him being insecure of his sexuality and trying to hide it or something. This makes sense... a friend of mine is gay and before he came out he was probably the most homophobic person I knew.

It could also be that using gay as a derogatory term isn't really a cultural no-no yet, it's not really an uncommon use of the term. I know I use it all the time... just not here

We're backwards in the outback, I know hardly any gay or non-white people in my town, go the country!

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 21 Dec 2005 05:46

yeah look typically apart from in the discussion forum calling things "gay" is strictly prohibited and people tend to get a temp suspension for breaking that rule or using any kind of discriminatory language so we ask that you don't do it.

Regarding the word "retarded" - that word actually has always had a negative meaning and we tolerate it's usage as a negative word since that is the meaning of the word. Obviously in recent times "retarded" has come to be connected with mentally handicapped people however the very reason why they are called "mentally handicapped" people now instead of "mentally retarded" is because "retarded" is a negative word. It's insulting to call somebody "retarded" regardless of that connotation and in general we ask you not insult people - however saying "the bus system in Hobart is retarded" is completely allowable as since the existence of the word - or even the latin word it comes from - that would be the correct usage. Although I guess it's good to keep in mind that some people are insulted by the usage of the word because of its modern day connotations and I always think it's best not to insult people needlessly.

mattkain · Post by **mattkain** » 21 Dec 2005 11:29

Jeremy wrote:yeah look typically apart from in the discussion forum calling things "gay" is strictly prohibited and people tend to get a temp suspension for breaking that rule or using any kind of discriminatory language so we ask that you don't do it.

Regarding the word "retarded" - that word actually has always had a negative meaning and we tolerate it's usage as a negative word since that is the meaning of the word. Obviously in recent times "retarded" has come to be connected with mentally handicapped people however the very reason why they are called "mentally handicapped" people now instead of "mentally retarded" is because "retarded" is a negative word. It's insulting to call somebody "retarded" regardless of that connotation and in general we ask you not insult people - however saying "the bus system in Hobart is retarded" is completely allowable as since the existence of the word - or even the latin word it comes from - that would be the correct usage. Although I guess it's good to keep in mind that some people are insulted by the usage of the word because of its modern day connotations and I always think it's best not to insult people needlessly.

Wow. That is unbelievably incorrect. Jeremy, I'm sorry if it seems like I'm always jumping at the chance to dig into your comments, but what you said above is just plain wrong. This is proof positive that you cannot believe everything on the internet (please see the recent wikipedia scandal for more evidence). The term “retard” developed as a slang insult only AFTER being used as a term to refer to people with cognitive disabilities. It is very important to understand this. Let me try to explain….

Jeremy wrote:Regarding the word "retarded" - that word actually has always had a negative meaning

Wrong. Historically speaking, the word “retard” or “retarded” has NOT always had a negative meaning. In fact there is *nothing* in the word's origin that implies a negative connotation. For those of us that have *actually* studied latin, the etymology is obvious. The original root is the latin “tardus” which simply means “slow.” More precisely, the modern form of retard stems from the latin verb “retardare” which means to slow down or to delay. There is nothing negative or insulting here. The modern definition of “retard” is also a verb (one which has deviated little from its original root) which means to slow down or decrease the speed of a process. “Retardation” means the act of retarding. This root can be seen in other words as well: tardy (to be late), retardant (such as a flame retardant, something that slows down fire), etc. All of this is a bit technical, but the gist is this: to “retard” simply means to make something go slower. If something goes through a process of “retardation” then it simply means that it has slowed down. Simple, right? Jeremy is 100% wrong when he claims that the “word actually has always had a negative meaning and we tolerate it's usage as a negative word since that is the meaning of the word.” Not correct at all. By themselves and using their original definition, retard and retardation DO NOT have a negative connotation in any way, shape, or form.

In fact, the words retard and retardation are actually quite common in scientific and technical literature. Here's an example. I work as a software developer for a company that writes biological and medical research tools. One of the products that I am currently working on is an in vivo, cardiac, ultrasound imaging suite. Not to get too technical, but the basic idea is that a tube known as a catheter containing a tiny ultrasound device is jammed up into your arteries. The catheter is then pulled back through the arteries at a constant temporal rate while the ultrasound device generates images of the arteries. One of the keys to this process is ensuring that the speed that the catheter travels through the arteries is constant. If the catheter slows down, we say that it has been retarded or that there was a retardation of the pullback. Here's what I might say:

Matt: The pullback image's acquisition rate is slower than usual due to a retardation of the catheter.

Nothing negative here. This is just common usage of the term.

If this is true, then when and why did retard develop as an insult? Mental retardation was originally the scientific term referring to a rather broad group of cognitive disabilities. The meaning is obvious: a slowing down of the mind or a slowing down of mental development. More recently, mental retardation has been replaced with terms such as “mental handicap” or “cognitive disability.” From my experience cognitive disability is more commonly preferred (I used to be a teacher at a day facility working with cognitively disabled adults with disabilities ranging from autism to Asperger syndrome to profound retardation to even schizophrenia). Here is the key: there has been a move away from the word retardation *because* it has been so heavily appropriated as an insult. The term wasn’t dropped because someone suddenly pulled out a dictionary and was shocked to find out that retardation was and has always been an insult. “Oh my gosh! We better pick a new word!” Not the case at all. At some point people started using retard as an insult because in their eyes someone with a cognitive disability was somehow inferior, inhuman, and worthless – hence in their eyes calling someone a retard became the perfect insult. The term was dropped because it developed into a common, widespread slang insult that the cognitively disabled community was sick of being associated with. The historical progression of the term goes something like this:

1. Mental retardation is adopted as a scientific term for people with various mental disabilities because it means a "slowing of mental development."

2. People start using (rather insensitively I might add) “retard” or “retarded” as a demeaning, derogatory insult.

3. Mental retardation is dropped as a term for people with mental disabilities because it has developed into an insult. People with mental disabilities want to distance themselves from being thought of as a dehumanizing, derogatory term (wouldn’t you?). New terms such as “mental handicap” or “cognitive disability” are used instead.

Sorry for the length, but I think it is important for people to understand the history behind these terms. There is nothing in the origin of the word retard that implies that it is some sort of aspersion. Retard developed as an insult for very obvious reasons: insensitive, immature, and cruel people began throwing the term around in a slanderous way because in their opinion having a cognitive disability was something to ridicule, something to mock, and something that should be used to make fun of others. Think about this next time you use the term.

MattKain

darbsllim · Post by **darbsllim** » 21 Dec 2005 12:39

The topic of discussion isn't 'Why can't I post about me making money off of the forum members', it's 'Why can't I post about making money.'

I've stated a few times that I don't care anymore whether I get referrals at this place. I even said I would give my entire comission back, or even give you money to start it out with so you're not risking your own cash. I just want to tell people about it because it's helped me out so much in the last 2/3 months.

But then everyone attacks me as if I'm some evil snake oil salesman trying to steal money from innocent people.

Everyone is too quick to throw around the term ponzi. The TRUE term of a ponzi is a business while solely relies on the money of new members to pay off the promised returns to old members. When the program stops bringing in new members, and new money, the program will collapse.

You guys have no idea what you're talking about when you say *the business in question* is a ponzi. I've given you ample evidence that *the business in question* is NOT a ponzi, but instead of reading that and trying to understand it, everyone resorts to attacking me and my apparent lack of morals.

Guys, I don't just go around posting about this on every forum I find on the internet. I think about it before hand and I make the decision whether or not I think it would be appropriate to post about it on forums that I have an established relationship with. And I only post about it in the appropriate places on that forum.

I'm not going to post about *the business in question* on footbag.org because I know anything advertising anything at all is against their terms. But here in the General Discussion section of modified, which is for serious non-footbag discussion - I thought would be appropriate since it seems like anything goes.

I'm not some crazy MLM guru who pretended to be a footbager for 2 years so he can make a few bucks from the users of modified.ca. I'm just a regular guy like the rest of you. I don't want to lure kids into this, I talk to the person on MSN before they invest to get to know a bit about them and make sure they are adults who know what they're getting into.

I've seen many examples of people talking about how they wish they had more money, they can't afford to buy lavers, or they really want a high quality bag, etc. Well I was in that position not 2 months ago. I never said "make millions in 2 weeks" I said "make 144% in 12 days."

You can do this for as little as $6, that's only going to make you about $2 profit. I'm not saying this will make you rich overnight, but if you have the extra money, this could be a passive income for some people - and it's a relatively safe investment right now, compared to alternative online and offline investing alternatives, contrary to what all of you think. And the best thing about this is that it takes no skill or knowledge of investing. For example, *the business in question* is opening up the world of forex trading profits to someone who doesn't even know what forex stands for. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I am willing to seriously debate this, and show you how *the business in question* is not a ponzi...but if everyone just attacks me and calls me a heartless and souless grinch, then whats the point - Merry Christmas right back at ya!

And the main thing here is that I'm not trying to make money off of you guys, I don't care if you sign up with me as your referrer or not. I just wanted to tell people about it. if you hit a ducking paradox whirl for the first time, would you not want to tell people about it? Well it feels like I've hit a 5 ad trick for the first time with *the business in question* and I just wanted to tell people about it.

I'm not even going to comment on that person who's just trying to get his post count up by creating controversy over immature and inappropriate flaming.

As a side not, I checked out that photography website, he's got some really great shots. If you're interested Jeremy, check this guy's site out he does some amazing shots too, he's an online acquaintance from where I hail from, Nova Scotia, Shaun Lowe's Gallery

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 21 Dec 2005 15:02

In responce to what Matt has said - calling somebody "slow" has also been an insult for a very long time... I'm not going to debate such a pedantic thing. If you are offended by that word don't use it.

the Executioner · Post by **the Executioner** » 21 Dec 2005 15:20

Jeremy wrote:... What if it was Peter Irish - somebody who doesn't post that often on modified but is an immensly respected person in the footbag community. You might think this is pretty hypothetical (where's my magic carpet?) but early this year (or maybe last year) a fairly respected member of the modified and footbag communities posted a topic advertising cheap printer cartridges. Is that ok or should that be banned too?

For the record, because of the way this quote is worded and it's implications, it was not me who posted a topic advertising cheap printer cartriges. Sorry to whoever posted it, but that's a lame topic. And I'm going to use this opportunity to state that I'm fairly impressed by how much lame discussion has been tossed around on modified lately. I'm happy some people are showing some maturity and working out thier differences, but if it's not one thing it's another. And that quote about punishing Brad as a mod??? That's funny. Do I really need to be wasting my time reading all this shit

Either way, I hope nobody deletes any of this, people's true personalities are really shining through and it's good to know who's who on modified.

hackeysnacker · Post by **hackeysnacker** » 21 Dec 2005 16:05

I think that most people who read this are driven to post in any angry state. When i read this it pissed me off that this guy, darbslim, actually thinks people on here are that ignorant and desperate [simply because they're footbaggers(?)!]. This thread is definitly bringing out the ugly in people, but it is rather offensive to see this guy try and take advantage of anyone's time, especially fellow footbaggers. It would be pretty shitty to be on the bottom of this "money making oppurtunity" sitting on one's computer ALL day, and end up making next to squat.

mattkain · Post by **mattkain** » 21 Dec 2005 16:33

Jeremy wrote:In responce to what Matt has said - calling somebody “slow” has also been an insult for a very long time...

Since when? Care to back that up with your obvious extensive knowledge of linguistic history? Calling or implying that someone is mentally slow can and usually is construed as an insult, however there is nothing inherently insulting about simply calling something “slow.” If you had read my post, you would have learned that mental slowness is NOT implied in the original meaning of the word “retard.” Like just about any word, “slow” only turns into an insult based on the context. Please take the time to reread my post. Let me give you some more examples where something is called slow, but it is not an insult:

“I like Lon's style. It's a lot slower and smoother than many other shredders.”

“We need to address this problem slowly so that we do not make any hasty generalizations or come to rash, invalid conclusions.”

“The evolution of a star is rather slow, taking place over millions of years.”

“John took his time on the exam, going over each question slowly and with careful consideration.”

In each case, I am calling something slow. Are any of these insults? No. You’re confusing the argument. Using “slow” as an insult is simply another term of derision that derived from trying to insult someone by implying that their intelligence is on par with individuals with cognitive disabilities. Your example is simply another permutation of calling someone a retard and only works as an insult when the context surrounding its use is clear. In both cases, using the terms “slow” and “retard” as an insult is a relatively modern neologism that is derived from the words’ associations with people with cognitive disabilities. Again, this is due to the fact that mental slowness and mental retardation were and are both scientifically acceptable and very common terms for referring to people with cognitive disabilities. In fact, it only a matter of time before calling someone “cognitive” becomes an insult. Think about it. Why do you hear people call others “mental” as a form of an insult? There's nothing inherently bad about the word “mental” (on the contrary, someone not in the know might think this is a compliment). However, based on its use in the term “mental retardation”, “mental” has morphed into an insult. No matter how you spin it, by using terms like this you are implying that comparing someone to people with mental, cognitive, or developmental disabilities is a form of insult. Insulting or not, it’s not very mature or sensitive to use these terms. I understand that this is a sticky area and begins to call into question a whole bevy of words so maybe we should just stick to debating the term “retard” before this gets too out of hand.

Jeremy wrote:Although I guess it's good to keep in mind that some people are insulted by the usage of the word because of its modern day connotations and I always think it's best not to insult people needlessly.

Well put. Terminology aside (since it's a hopeless debate), I think it's obvious that many of us need to consider this credo more often.

As for being pedantic… ughh… what do you expect when having a debate over semantics? If my rigorous, dialectical, and sometimes “pedantic” approach to this debate is too much for you, then move on.

MattKain

P.S. Jeremy, maybe these topics should be split since there are really two arguments here. One concerning appropriate/inappropriate terminology and one concerning the discussion of money making schemes.

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 21 Dec 2005 16:47

mattkain wrote:[
P.S. Jeremy, maybe these topics should be split since there are really two arguments here. One concerning appropriate/inappropriate terminology and one concerning the discussion of money making schemes.

Actually, I was thinking in the opposite direction: both of these topics are pointless, boring, and a source of flaming. I was thinking we could gather all topics on modified which fit that description (the "Do not trade" thread springs to mind) and combine them into one giant thread.

Me--->

sampotter · Post by **sampotter** » 21 Dec 2005 17:16

Could we have one giant thread of Matt's past and present pedantic throw-downs?

brian relly · Post by **brian relly** » 21 Dec 2005 18:49

-Ritardando. 'Nuff said.

-

SandWraith · Post by **SandWraith** » 21 Dec 2005 19:28

^^^^ That pic is the shit.

By 'the shit' I mean good shit, as opposed to bad shit, which is what this thread is.