Reverse pay-for-post: pay-for-no-post
 

Something funny, one of our members paid another member $2,000 not to post on the site anymore (yes, he was that annoyed).

what site is this? I need to join just to get paid to leave too!

Last month we gave away an $1,800 Sonos music system; but it is a 'small' community that doesn't treat strangers very nicely so I would be hesitant to post a link (although it's not a secret).

Let's just say the person leaving was a bit on the liberal side and the person with the money to make it happen was more on the conservative side. ;)

Would the person have left (s)he was asked politely?

Hilarious!

This is where a more robust "Ignore this user's posts and threads completely" hack for vBulletin may have come in handy.

Um, no.

And I expect that check to be in the mail immediately! ;)

[high]* Boofo runs off to find another board to make some money on by leaving[/high]

Even better, the money was PayPal'd, lol!

I had to ask. :classic:

The guy who was bought out got the better end of the deal.

$2,000?!! that guy that paid this much obviously didn't work for his/her money or he would have spent it a lot better and wisely if he did. but good for that other guy, lol 2000 for doing nothing, hehe.

Sorry, guys, but in reality, I find this almost too impossible to believe. Sounds to me like we are being set up here. ;)

Probably.

Maybe. Yet, I'll go with the flow anyway since I'm not affected in the least. :)

I assure you it's enitrely legit; there is no punchline here. $2k isn't really that much, but its enough to make it funny.

It might not be over there, but thats more than I gat paid in a month over here. So to me $2k to stop posting is a big deal, and probably fake.

Haha that's so awesome. (For the dude who recieved the money that is)

His last post on the site was....

Well, now I know it HAS to be false. Anyone that says 2K isn't really that much can't be telling the truth. ;)

Scale of economics.... it may very well be alot to you (and others), but to some it isn't.

2k isn't really alot of money when you think about it. It's a considerable ammount to just get handed to you or to just waste. Though if you can't retire of the ammount, then really it isn't THAT much money. I've done coding jobs for that much before. After paying my rent, phone, insurance, light bill and NET bill. I was broke again. :(

Though I sure wouldn't mind someone handing me 2k for nothing! :p

"A lot" is also a relative term. The cost of living here in Hawaii is high. Where I live on the map 2K pays just over 1/3 of the monthly mortgage. Still, people who have and understand the value of money will see 2K as a lot. The undisciplined or spoiled will not.

Rent here is 1k a month. So 2k to me really isn't that much money. Its a very nice ammount to have, don't get me wrong. To me it's not a considerably large amount. The cost of living for me is pretty high also.

So there! Ha!

[high]* Boofo is so proud he is so mature[/high]

LOL @ Boofo. Umm...I'm not sure what's funny but I'm laughing with you. :D

That's the thing. With 2K you will go farther than I and we still have differences of what is "a lot". :)

It's a choice of lifestyle, that's all. Do you still shop at WalMart when you can afford Target? Does doing so make you spoiled or undisciplined when you buy Polo instead of the Kate Jaskson you were used to? Do you still buy $20 Vans when you can afford a decent pair of Nike's? I love Tommy Bahamma shirts at $130 a pop; nothing wrong with buying a good shirt.

It doesn't mean they are spoiled, it's just that their scale of what makes them think twice before spending it is different than others.

Seems like it was a political debate that got too annoying for one of the parties involved. Funny that it sounds like it was a Republican who threw money at the problem, shutting the liberal Bush-basher right up, once and for all.

Did the bidding start lower, like, say $500, and raise steadily until the Bush-basher's "breaking point" price was finally found?

Nice to know that "everyone has a price." ;)

Yes, because then I can afford twice as much. Names do not make the clothes. It's staus is all. Dumb reason for spending more than you have to. You're not going to be any better or smarter wearing name brand clothes. You will just THINK you are. ;)

Well, sometimes others will think so too. Not saying it's right, but sometimes "status symbols" like that do, in fact, have an effect on someone's reception, popularity, success with the ladies, whatever.

I can afford name brand sodas, popular clothes (Aeropostale, Aber Crombie and Fitch {or however the hell you spell it}, American Eagle, etc.), and a host of other things but I don't. I buy my clothes at J.C. Penny or Sears. I drink Sam's Choice soda (Wal-marts off brand), etc.

Names != good.

That's called being "phony" I think. ;)

$2,000 would set me up in a nice 2 bedroom house for 4 months where I live. :)

Perhaps. But sometimes, for some people, that works for them. Why judge?

Think about that statement. You think you're not judged by the designer clothes you where? (which is why you wear them as you say) They can judge you but I can't? Now I'm hurt. :(

Well, I'm over that now. ;)

It's an undisciplined and spoiled lifestyle. ;)

I understand the Ralph Lauren/Polo lifestyle first-hand. Yet, I would not consider spending money to get rid of someone in a forum. If money becomes the answer to problems outside the economics and necessaties it is a matter of being spoiled and undisciplined.

I don't think you read closely what I wrote; I think you're expressing a knee-jerk reaction.

I never said I wear designer clothes.

I simply said that such "status symbols" (as phony as they may be) do have an effect in our society. And some people decide that's a price they are willing to pay, in order to get the results they desire.

That doesn't make them bad people. Just means their priorities are different than yours.

I don't know Boofo but I doubt that he took anything personally, Tralala. ;)

BTW...Wearing designer clothing does not equate to being "phony". Does it have an affect how you feel? Sure. Does it necessarily improve your self-worth or status? No. What you wear is an extention of yourself but it does not nor should it define you. Only your actions do.

Excellent point Freesteyelz. :)

I would spend my money on Mountain Dew ;)

I didn't take anything personally. This is just a conversation among friends. ;)

In affecting how it makes you feel, doesn't that really constitute a form of phoniness, to have to depend on something like designer clothers to make yourself feel better? Phoniness to yourself, if no one else. How you feel does affect your ideas and actions, too. ;)

Mmm. I haven't had Mountain Dew, let alone soda, for years now. I do miss it at times. :)

I know. I was speaking on your behalf. :classic:

Not necessarily. Phony by definition is being untrue to yourself and to others. Wearing something that makes you feel good is actually a positive, not only emotionally but chemically too (endorphines). What makes us feel good is not always clear and it is different for each person. What is clear is that it's conditional based. If it's something managable it becomes tangible and as a result it becomes true.

Now your choice of wording "depend" will not hold true for everyone that wears designer clothing. For example, I only wear Ralph Lauren/Polo. There are times when I'm just not up to par and nothing I wear would change that fact. I don't depend on the brand of clothing to make me something that I'm not.

For my well-being I need a balance, so does everyone else. However you get to that stage is irrelavent. If it's legal and it doesn't harm anyone it's all good. If clothing is one factor then so be it.

How you dress and the image you project has as much to do with your success as ability, confidence and opportunity. I wouldn't be caught dead walking into a meeting with potential investors wearing a shirt from an off the shelf retailer; and you can bet if I did that multi-million dollar investment I was looking for wouldn't happen either.

Sure, Sam Walton could get away with it; but there are always exceptions to the rule.