Hmm, it does seem like a spambot post to me as well. We haven't had nearly as many since I made some harsh settings changes a while back... and I've been pretty busy lately so I haven't been on here as much.

Yes, that was a nice nostalgic thread.
Sad to see it going Dada at the end through spammer intervention
(I recognize the involuntary artistic value, but none the less... ;-)
Yours humbly

[quote]8588kjwe[/quote]

For quite some time I was registered somewhere as gungadin108. :D

You will also notice that in the thread of the other set of forums you cited
that, apart from "chummy'" and his ghost dancing the main poster was me.

The fact that I took the poster's 'guff' anent Danny Goodman at face value
did in no way detract from what was the core of the thread.

Kisses all round.

What indicates to me that no human being has written that particular post?
Something that registers under a username like 8588kjwe
just a minute before it places its single post,
using the completely braindead repetition of the last line of the post as a title,
including the ".",
forgoing any personal remarks
(I mean not all but most newbies are able to utter one word of introduction in such a situation)
writing stuff that makes you scratch your head (and you did, bloody badly)
and reads like having been ripped off and remixed from some far-out site
(or perhaps milked from a GPT-3 installation, as Google can not find any similar text on the web),
in short, a totally nebular string that can be posted generically in any online forum or channel regardless of what the special interests there might be.

If this does not set the spamdar on beeping alert, click on the profile of this "user" and check (please do not click on!) the website entry to find out why it had to register at all.
Scotlet Amour, a oui, bien sûr, je vais et je viens...!

While some caring admin here meanwhile managed to delete most of the 200 or 300 kiddie-script members that had registered on this site a while ago,
the other well-known site if you look has 125,109 users (all human LiveCode die-hards for sure!)
some of whom even read what gets written and react
as soon as they find a random non-stopword match on a social media site, e.g.
https://forums.livecode.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=36404&p=212323#p212321
ripping a random Twitter post by a random husband quoting his random wife
https://twitter.com/ddouglasgoody/status/1446996989690978309

Not all that gets posted must make sense --
so user-operated spamdars or admins with botbuster guns be praised
Kiss kiss
Amour

[quote]posts by spambots[/quote]

Just to be "bloody" minded, what indicates to you that the OP might be a spambot.

I do not possess either a 'gaydar', not for that matter a 'spamdar' . . . so am not very good
at spotting this type of thing: although, frankly, I have no particular problem with anything
a 'gaydar' might detect.

A message that uses "bloody bad" seems unspamlike (while I'm riffing on neologisms). :D

[quote]these forums will wither and die without a concerted
effort to plug them all and everywhere.[/quote]

That is probably a truism: but there is some false logic going on in the OP's post insofar
as that one CAN make "a concerted effort to plug them all and everywhere" without offending anyone.

Hence my question, "what do you mean by 'bloody bad'?"

And one thing that is bloody bad is that if the OP is not a spambot is that s/he has not returned
to clarify that.

Even though all conversation
shall be welcome in a way,
I must say that I get a little worried
when posts by spambots somewhere
get discussed instead of deleted. :-)

[quote=8588kjwe post_id=1662 time=1645067900 user_id=1690]
...probably part of the problem is that people seem worried
about offending other people . . .
[/quote]
Mature open source projects have found greater risk with the opposite: development cultures that normalize casual disregard for others.

For this reason most successful open source protects have adopted some form of a community code of conduct.

Participation is the lifeblood of open source. Governance favoring inclusiveness allows the widest participation; making that explicit with a Code of Conduct clarifies that priority.

During my brief tenure as LC's Community Liaison we drafted that project's CoC largely with inspiration from Ubuntu's.

Here's an even simpler example:
https://communitycodeofconduct.com/

CoCs have proven so useful for fostering participation that there's even a nascent effort to standardize them, as we see with distribution licenses.

Before writing here I dropped a note to a friend who's been the director of the Open Source Initiative to learn the current status of such standardization efforts. I'll report back if I learn anything actionable.

[quote]That's bloody bad[/quote]

What is?

Could you contextualise your post a bit more, please?