I'm a little confused as it seems like a lot of people ask perfectly good questions here on the forum and are then slammed by a bunch of idiots making vulgar remarks. I guess I'm not understanding what the moderator does? This is only my second post and have stood behind the lines for over a year now never attempting to contribute for fear of being slammed. What's the point of the Queenzone forum if people don't feel they can participate?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
HOW DARE YOU MAKE SUCH A STUPID TOPIC! GO HOME AND DIE!!! YOUR TYPE RUIN THIS FORUM!!
I'm just kidding. QZers usually only get upset when people....
1. ask stupid questions that could be found on google or wikipedia
2. ask stupid questions that they know can't be answered
3. ask for things that are either impossible to get, or can't be shared on the site
People aren't as bad as I've seen them lately, on both sides.
I'm just kidding. QZers usually only get upset when people....
1. ask stupid questions that could be found on google or wikipedia
2. ask stupid questions that they know can't be answered
3. ask for things that are either impossible to get, or can't be shared on the site
People aren't as bad as I've seen them lately, on both sides.
Word.
I started to read your email and thought here we go... Thanks for the eye catching headline! It seems easier to just ignore these types of questions instead of taking the time to insult others.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Karen L wrote: [/QUOTENAME]... It seems easier to just ignore these types of questions instead of taking the time to insult others. [/QUOTE]
I couldn't agree more Karen L but sadly some seem to go out of their way to insult. If you've been visiting QZ for a while, you've probably already learned who the bullies are so you can ignore their posts too!
Granted, the search function is both useful and underused but having said that, isn't it easier to just point the uninformed in the direction of the archives instead of being out and out rude?
I couldn't agree more Karen L but sadly some seem to go out of their way to insult. If you've been visiting QZ for a while, you've probably already learned who the bullies are so you can ignore their posts too!
Granted, the search function is both useful and underused but having said that, isn't it easier to just point the uninformed in the direction of the archives instead of being out and out rude?
Agreed.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]saltnvinegar wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Karen L wrote: [/QUOTENAME]... It seems easier to just ignore these types of questions instead of taking the time to insult others. [/QUOTE]
I couldn't agree more Karen L but sadly some seem to go out of their way to insult. If you've been visiting QZ for a while, you've probably already learned who the bullies are so you can ignore their posts too!
Granted, the search function is both useful and underused but having said that, isn't it easier to just point the uninformed in the direction of the archives instead of being out and out rude?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]saltnvinegar wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Karen L wrote: [/QUOTENAME]... It seems easier to just ignore these types of questions instead of taking the time to insult others. [/QUOTE]
I couldn't agree more Karen L but sadly some seem to go out of their way to insult. If you've been visiting QZ for a while, you've probably already learned who the bullies are so you can ignore their posts too!
Granted, the search function is both useful and underused but having said that, isn't it easier to just point the uninformed in the direction of the archives instead of being out and out rude?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME] .....ASSDUDE...... wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Wiki can be edited....[/QUOTE]
So can any text book. What makes the text book any more credible than wikipedia? The writer of a text book doesn't have any less of an agenda than a wiki editor does.
Wikipedia is a great source, because it is always immediately updated as new knowledge comes to light. With the very odd exception, it is always accurate, because there are always people checking the articles to ensure they are correct.
Example... 99% of science/astronomy text books are wrong because they do not have the new definition of a planet. Wiki, on the other hand, was updated hours afterward.
So can any text book. What makes the text book any more credible than wikipedia? The writer of a text book doesn't have any less of an agenda than a wiki editor does.
Wikipedia is a great source, because it is always immediately updated as new knowledge comes to light. With the very odd exception, it is always accurate, because there are always people checking the articles to ensure they are correct.
Example... 99% of science/astronomy text books are wrong because they do not have the new definition of a planet. Wiki, on the other hand, was updated hours afterward.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Karen L wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'm a little confused as it seems like a lot of people ask perfectly good questions here on the forum and are then slammed by a bunch of idiots making vulgar remarks. I guess I'm not understanding what the moderator does? This is only my second post and have stood behind the lines for over a year now never attempting to contribute for fear of being slammed. What's the point of the Queenzone forum if people don't feel they can participate? [/QUOTE]
Dont pay attention to retards who attack you for simple questions. Basically everyone have been against me but i could care less about what they say
Dont pay attention to retards who attack you for simple questions. Basically everyone have been against me but i could care less about what they say
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME] .....ASSDUDE...... wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I still see info on bands where the data is not correct.[/QUOTE]
And once again, one out of two rock music-related books has wrong information in there, too.
It's all relative, my friend.
The most important wiki topics have watchdogs at all times. I've tried editing wrong information into an article a couple times, as a test... and within minutes, my edits were deleted.
And once again, one out of two rock music-related books has wrong information in there, too.
It's all relative, my friend.
The most important wiki topics have watchdogs at all times. I've tried editing wrong information into an article a couple times, as a test... and within minutes, my edits were deleted.
In answer to the topic- exactly.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME] .....ASSDUDE...... wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I still see info on bands where the data is not correct.[/QUOTE]
And once again, one out of two rock music-related books has wrong information in there, too.
It's all relative, my friend.
The most important wiki topics have watchdogs at all times. I've tried editing wrong information into an article a couple times, as a test... and within minutes, my edits were deleted.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed, I have in the past changed people's middle names on wiki, and in minutes, it's editted back.
And once again, one out of two rock music-related books has wrong information in there, too.
It's all relative, my friend.
The most important wiki topics have watchdogs at all times. I've tried editing wrong information into an article a couple times, as a test... and within minutes, my edits were deleted.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed, I have in the past changed people's middle names on wiki, and in minutes, it's editted back.
Yes, but we also have to remember, as Treasure Moment so eloquently reminds us every post, "Ask a Stupid Question..."
That was not something created on Queenzone. Plus I'd say about 68% of the questions asked on queenzone are not asked for legitimate reasons.
So I ask you, Karen G, how would you answer the following questions:
1. Was Bohemian Rhapsody about AIDS?
2. What was Freddie's last words?
3. Is it ok for Brian and Roger to use Paul Rodgers?
4. Where is John Deacon?
5. Who is John Deacon?
6. When is the box set coming out?
7. Are you sure Bohemian Rhapsody isn't about AIDS?
8. Is Freddie better than Paul?
9. Who is the moderator here?
10. Would anybody like me to provide them a complete copy of:
a) Sunbury '74
b) Hangman studio version
c) Face It Alone
d) the complete 13 track Queen II album.
I think it would amaze you how many times those exact questions were asked here.
That was not something created on Queenzone. Plus I'd say about 68% of the questions asked on queenzone are not asked for legitimate reasons.
So I ask you, Karen G, how would you answer the following questions:
1. Was Bohemian Rhapsody about AIDS?
2. What was Freddie's last words?
3. Is it ok for Brian and Roger to use Paul Rodgers?
4. Where is John Deacon?
5. Who is John Deacon?
6. When is the box set coming out?
7. Are you sure Bohemian Rhapsody isn't about AIDS?
8. Is Freddie better than Paul?
9. Who is the moderator here?
10. Would anybody like me to provide them a complete copy of:
a) Sunbury '74
b) Hangman studio version
c) Face It Alone
d) the complete 13 track Queen II album.
I think it would amaze you how many times those exact questions were asked here.
I refuse to take seriously anyone who claims to have been reading this site for a year yet still believes there is a moderator.
Nobody is that stupid, therefore this is a WUM
Nobody is that stupid, therefore this is a WUM
Moderator, you mean Innuendo1990? Sorry ,bad joke!