Like I've mentioned in various MY chatrooms -- I don't understand code and programming (yet?) .....a lot of this is a bit over my head. Thanks for helping me understand :)
Someone help me understand the comments under this answer? .....the code markdown is not the problem.
^^^ just reread them, still not understanding what s/he's after.
Problematic part is "Could we say, that if their intention in making bridges and marketplaces would be for us, than the money which they made could be consider as theirs, but since they didnt make it for us, then God is not gonna our toiling in Torah for gold and silver so to say?" .....that doesn't appear to make any sense, at all.
In all seriousness, I know a really nice family that consciously replaces "stupid" with "foolish" .....it's a much softer word, and using those words consciously rather than just saying them whenever they come to mind makes watching your speech easier.
@Scimonster I wasn't trying this time. It think probably what happened is that this is my first Winter with a real smartphone, so I'm more likely to get a pageload in at the critical time between the end of Shabbat and the end of Saturday, GMT.
@Scimonster Well, my previous phone had very little memory for loading apps, though it had an Android OS on it. I think I used it less than I use my current one for things like MY due to that clunkiness, even if not directly related. Also, partly as a result of having a better phone, I've become less stingy with 3G data use (which I pay for roughly a la carte). (Though usually, on Motzaei Shabbat, I'm in a WiFi area.)
@IsaacMoses congrats! And there's enough time before the next two-day yom tov for you to get Fanatic if you're careful. :-)
@IsaacMoses I have been wondering about that. The newly-added source link is the one that someone has used to troll this site in the past, but that doesn't mean this user is doing so. (OTOH, it sounds like if it's a sincere question the user received an unsolicited mailing.)
As an aside, other sites usually don't get Google-juice from SE, so while it could be an attempt to spread the links, it won't increase their page rank.
@MonicaCellio @IsaacMoses Even if the post was well-intentioned, I see no problem removing superfluous links, particularly superfluous links to missionary sites!
This comment contributes to my suspicion. Most Jews (perhaps Teimanim excepted) would not associate our present practice of monogamy with "controversy."
... opening the question up, more explicitly, to answers that analyze the permissibly of pursuing curiosity about other religions for the purpose of incorporating their teachings into one's world-view.
@YeZ Amen, I guess. Looks like I have to get through Bo, when Shabbat ends (for me) a little less than an hour before midnight GMT. That's getting close. We'll see.
@Shokhet Presumably. It's not too surprising, given the sensitivity of the topic. This may be someone who wanted to relate personal experience but was afraid that a user account would link back to them in person.
(Note that the mods may be well aware of this information along with other information that either supports or contradicts your suspicion, and they would not be allowed to discuss it or anything they're doing about it in public.)
@IsaacMoses mods can actually share anything that would be publicly discoverable if they wish, we just can't discuss anything that isn't discoverable without permission of the person whose private information it is
so, for example, we could say if someone got suspended in chat because any user could see that
@AJHenderson Well, sure. I was referring to anything un-public, including, say, IP addresses, private communications with the user, or mod-only deliberations
@AJHenderson There was some talk on MSE about a 7-year suspension.....I think all spam accounts are merged to that account, which is in perpetual suspension ;-)
Anna's answer is correct, but there is one other possible (and in a way, more innocent) reason for extremely long suspensions: The Super User moderators at some point started to merge all spam accounts into a single user (this has several interesting implications for spamfighting) instead of outr...
Flags raised in chat go to all mods on all sites; the chat system has the concept of "moderator" but not "moderator within a specific space only". Flags raised on posts or comments on main or meta go only to people with moderator status on that site -- the moderators and SE employees who have diamonds (CMs, some developers, a few others).
Spammers aren't merged into one uber-spammer account any more, by the way. SE has other ways of dealing with them.
@AJHenderson @Shokhet SE has some sort of magic for keeping track of deleted accounts and preventing abuse behind the scenes, which they do not disclose.
@Shokhet so it used to be (she says vaguely) that they wanted to keep the accounts around as a way of tracking spammers across sites and over time, but they now have better ways to do that so we nuke 'em when we find 'em.
The tooltip that comes up when you mouse-over the flag for moderator option in chat is:
Moderator flags are only seen by the site-moderators, and should be used to indicate serious issues with a message, and other administrative issues.
When I read this, I interpret "site-moderators" as "th...
Incidentally, in case anyone's wondering, this was prompted by my making the described mistake today when I flagged my own message with commentary intended for the MY mods. I don't particularly mind that other SE mods (e.g. AJ) saw it, but I didn't mean to bother them all with it.
The tooltip that comes up when you mouse-over the flag for moderator option in chat is:
Moderator flags are only seen by the site-moderators, and should be used to indicate serious issues with a message, and other administrative issues.
When I read this, I interpret "site-moderators" as "th...
