[QUOTE=kriesel;512051]Got this while trying to reply to a PM I received, which requested information:

Attempted reply wasSo many questions this raises.

Intentional or accidental, conflict between asking in a PM for information and having replies blocked?

Why the months long delay between my original question and the (currently pointless) PM reply from him?

Who gets not allowed to receive private messages, and why?

Wouldn't [B]sending[/B] private messages be more likely to be disallowed, such as in response to some form of abuse of the privilege? (Asking in general.)

Plus, my original question remains.[/QUOTE]I received 20 PMs today. One was more than 8 years old. All this time had not allowed PMs anyway, but when I checked the settings they were enabled. So I disabled them again to see what would happen. Then I received two more PMs soon after I disabled them. And now someone says they can't send me PMs. :confused:

So what is it, PMs get to me, or not? I don't know any more. :confused:[sup]2[/sup]

Is this something to do with the recent posting problem?

Edit: To answer your question: The text "undefined" is set by the admin/mod/god/NSA/hackers. I can't set it. The other text fields are just the name and location profile options.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;512054]I suspect the Retina didn't know there were outstanding PM's. Answered the ones that were there. Then turned off getting PM's (it is the user's choice).

To each his/her/their/X's own.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. He asked "can you give a link tot he post?" this morning, and disabled the ability to reply to his question in the same channel he posed it (PM), or something. Peculiar.

[QUOTE=retina;512055]I received 20 PMs today. One was more than 8 years old. All this time had not allowed PMs anyway, but when I checked the settings they were enabled. So I disabled them again to see what would happen. Then I received two more PMs soon after I disabled them. And now someone says they can't send me PMs. :confused:

So what is it, PMs get to me, or not? I don't know any more. :confused:[sup]2[/sup]

Is this something to do with the recent posting problem?

Edit: To answer your question: The text "undefined" is set by the admin/mod/god/NSA/hackers. I can't set it. The other text fields are just the name and location profile options.[/QUOTE]Well thanks for getting back to me about what you thought was my question. Still haven't answered my original question, which was about "the unspeakable one". I think that was made pretty clear. (Maybe not enough sleep or something?)

I've no idea what's going on with your account.
There was no error message back in Oct when I sent you the first PM, or I would have done something about it such as post on a thread also or instead.

No idea why you would send a PM requesting a reply when you've disabled or are about to disable receiving PMs. Without saying, answer in a forum, incoming PM is or will be blocked.
The recent mersenneforum.org issue from ~6pm USCDT 3/26 to 1130am 3/27 does not seem to me to explain what occurred with my original question Oct 2018, your reply 4am USCDT today, or responding to you since.
There has been, for me anyway, intermittent access to the forum midday today, a combination of vbulletin server too busy, and dns timeouts with my crappy slow ISP.
All in all, it reminds me of a physics grad student I knew long ago, a very sharp guy, who generally had the DEC VAX assembler manuals on his desk, got involved in custom bus card designs, and frequently referred to minicomputers as confusers.

[QUOTE=kriesel;512061]Still haven't answered my original question, which was about "the unspeakable one".[/QUOTE][quote=me]The other text fields are just the name and location profile options.[/quote].

[QUOTE=retina;512055]Then I received two more PMs soon after I disabled them. And now someone says they can't send me PMs. :confused:[/QUOTE]To be fair one of those should have been me (and labeled as a test). As a supermod, I might be able to override the block. Still learning all of the vast power that I can weild.
:dunecat:
:lalalalala:

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;512065]To be fair one of those should have been me (and labeled as a test). As a supermod, I might be able to override the block. Still learning all of the vast power that I can weild.[/QUOTE]Yes, one was from you. I didn't want to mention names, since it was a [b]P[/b]M.

The other PM was also from someone with Chuck Norris abilities. So, that might solve one of the riddles.

Effective communication can be hard, even when everyone's trying their best.
[QUOTE=retina;]To answer your question: The text "undefined" is set by the admin/mod/god/NSA/hackers. I can't set it. The other text fields are just the name and location profile options.[/QUOTE]
Here's how I parsed that.
[CODE]To answer your question: The text "undefined" is set by the admin/mod/god/NSA/hackers.[/CODE](Retina responds to my question about "the unspeakable one" by referring to "undefined", which I did not ask about. It seemed a reply unrelated to my original question, indicating misunderstanding. It appeared to me to have the layout, here's an answer to the question, in the sentence following the colon.[CODE]
I can't set it. [/CODE]Retina elaborates about "undefined" mentioned in his previous sentence.
[CODE]The other text fields are just the name and location profile options.[/CODE]"Other" was interpreted as meaning not related to the question posed or answered, and apparently included for completeness. Also the distance from "question" to "other" separated by an additional elaboration sentence, is consistent with them being unrelated. The response seemed vague and indirect as well. There's not a mapping between the text string asked about and the field it was entered in. It was still left up to the reader to deduce that relationship. The original question I posed in October asked about precisely that relationship.

Alternate response: [CODE]"the unspeakable one" is the profile entry for name. [/CODE]Done, in 1 line, the verbal equivalent of responding x=y to the question x=?. That is a clear efficient quick way to respond to the question. (Optionally continue about "my evil lair" for location, "undefined", etc.AFTER referring to the question and directly answering it.)

It would in retrospect have been far quicker to experiment for myself rather than to ask.
I extrapolate retina's response and usage to mean that what's entered in a profile name field can be any text that fits, gets accepted by the vbulletin software, and passes muster with the forum moderators and any other applicable authorities. (Skip strings that might be interpreted as profane, or as online threats!) A quick experiment indicates a 20 character maximum.

[QUOTE=kriesel;512075]Effective communication can be hard, even when everyone's trying their best.

Here's how I parsed that.
[CODE]To answer your question: The text "undefined" is set by the admin/mod/god/NSA/hackers.[/CODE](Retina responds to my question about "the unspeakable one" by referring to "undefined", which I did not ask about. It seemed a reply unrelated to my original question, indicating misunderstanding. It appeared to me to have the layout, here's an answer to the question, in the sentence following the colon.[CODE]
I can't set it. [/CODE]Retina elaborates about "undefined" mentioned in his previous sentence.
[CODE]The other text fields are just the name and location profile options.[/CODE]"Other" was interpreted as meaning not related to the question posed or answered, and apparently included for completeness. Also the distance from "question" to "other" separated by an additional elaboration sentence, is consistent with them being unrelated. The response seemed vague and indirect as well. There's not a mapping between the text string asked about and the field it was entered in. It was still left up to the reader to deduce that relationship. The original question I posed in October asked about precisely that relationship.

Alternate response: [CODE]"the unspeakable one" is the profile entry for name. [/CODE]Done, in 1 line, the verbal equivalent of responding x=y to the question x=?. That is a clear efficient quick way to respond to the question. (Optionally continue about "my evil lair" for location, "undefined", etc.AFTER referring to the question and directly answering it.)

It would in retrospect have been far quicker to experiment for myself rather than to ask.
I extrapolate retina's response and usage to mean that what's entered in a profile name field can be any text that fits, gets accepted by the vbulletin software, and passes muster with the forum moderators and any other applicable authorities. (Skip strings that might be interpreted as profane, or as online threats!) A quick experiment indicates a 20 character maximum.[/QUOTE]I'm glad you figured out my terrible response. Exercising the brain is good for one's mental health. So because of me you shouldn't go senile any time soon. I am helping people to live better lives with my bad writing skills. Yay me. :smile:

[QUOTE=retina;512055]I received 20 PMs today. One was more than 8 years old. All this time had not allowed PMs anyway, but when I checked the settings they were enabled. So I disabled them again to see what would happen. Then I received two more PMs soon after I disabled them. And now someone says they can't send me PMs. :confused:

So what is it, PMs get to me, or not? I don't know any more. :confused:[sup]2[/sup]

Is this something to do with the recent posting problem?

Edit: To answer your question: The text "undefined" is set by the admin/mod/god/NSA/hackers. I can't set it. The other text fields are just the name and location profile options.[/QUOTE]FWIW I received four PMs from you yesterday (Thursday March 28, 2019). They all seemed out of date; one had a quotation from a post about a year old. When I tried to respond via PM, I got a system message to the effect, "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that." Further checking showed you had PMs disabled.

[url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-jussie-smollett-charges-dropped-20190326-story.html]In latest plot twist, Cook County prosecutors abruptly drop all charges against Jussie Smollett[/url]

This is [i]nuts![/i] The prosecutors didn't get an admission of guilt. They didn't make Smollett pay for all the police time his bogus complaint wasted. And, to top it off, the whole court file has been sealed -- at the request of the defense, without the prosecution contesting the request to seal the records.

The Chicago Chief of Police and Mayor are not happy campers. Neither are prosecutors' associations:

[url=http://www.ilpba.org/announcements/7249825]IPBA STATEMENT ON JUSSIE SMOLLETT CASE DISMISSAL[/url]

[url=https://ndaa.org/wp-content/uploads/NDAA-Press-Release-on-Prosecutorial-Best-Practices-in-High-Profile-Cases.pdf]National District Attorneys Association Statement on Prosecutorial Best Practices in High Profile Cases[/url]

I am reminded of the Topps bubble gum novelty "Wacky packages" parody [url=http://www.wackypackages.org/bestof/horrid.html]Horrid deodorant[/url] featuring a skunk with a clothespin clamped over its nose. Loudon Wainwright III, eat your heart out!

Of course, [i]Il Duce[/i], attracted by the stench, is trying to get the Feds involved. I doubt DOJ will want to have anything to do with it. There don't appear to be any federal charges, or any federal interest to pursue. It's purely an Illinois matter.

News organizations may get the court records unsealed; they'll certainly try.

This is disappointing regarding SA Foxx. I had hoped for better from her. The professional condemnation is devastating.