AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

 1 
 on: Today at 12:10:24 AM 
Started by corco - Last post by tchafe1978
Opening Day is tomorrow!

My Cubs will be at home hosting the Brewers, their neighbors up I-94.

Hopefully the weather allows them to play. Go Brewers!

 2 
 on: Today at 12:04:34 AM 
Started by Alps - Last post by Bobby5280
I don't think anyone knows what alignment I-11 will take thru or around Wickenburg. Any guess could be way off by hundreds of millions of dollars depending on that variable. My spitball attempt at a guess: $500 million.

 3 
 on: March 29, 2023, 11:59:41 PM 
Started by roadman65 - Last post by Max Rockatansky
Does anyone seriously believe MMM wasnít a troll at this point on the basis of his own post content?  If you were on the fence how is a second hand account from someone credible like 1 not enough evidence?

Here is the definition of trolling: to make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

I am not disputing that's what MMM was doing, but I maintain that his activity was really pretty mild trolling, even by this forum's standards. And because MMM managed to stay around for so long and even shared some personal information here, there was reason not to write him off immediately, and to think that he at least had some potential to contribute in a non-trolling matter.

It really doesn't matter now, and I'm not trying to defend MMM, but the discourse surrounding him seems to have gotten so extended and dramatized that I think it is worth pointing out he wasn't really that bad. But maybe his blurring of the line between acceptable and non-acceptable activity is partly why we're still so fascinated with him, even though we should have just closed the book and moved on long ago (which, ironically, is exactly what we would have done with a more egregious troll).

Iím not claiming the guy was Crash_It.  All the same, he was clearly trying to get a rise out of the forum numerous times.  Yeah sure, when it was confined to his own threads it was mostly harmless aside from being annoying.  Trouble was he wrecked a lot of legitimate threads by way of polluting them with his crazed ideas and thoughts on all manner of things. 

 4 
 on: March 29, 2023, 11:55:23 PM 
Started by roadman65 - Last post by Roadgeekteen
Does anyone seriously believe MMM wasnít a troll at this point on the basis of his own post content?  If you were on the fence how is a second hand account from someone credible like 1 not enough evidence?
Well MMM has been banned already, so that should be proof enough, as he wasn't getting banned pre discovery.

If I understand correctly, the ban was because of the sockpuppet, not because his forum activity was determined to be trolling.
If trolling were to be the cause of his ban he would have been banned much earlier on.

 5 
 on: March 29, 2023, 11:55:20 PM 
Started by Hunty2022 - Last post by webny99
NY 39?

 6 
 on: March 29, 2023, 11:53:49 PM 
Started by roadman65 - Last post by webny99
Does anyone seriously believe MMM wasnít a troll at this point on the basis of his own post content?  If you were on the fence how is a second hand account from someone credible like 1 not enough evidence?
Well MMM has been banned already, so that should be proof enough, as he wasn't getting banned pre discovery.

If I understand correctly, the ban was because of the sockpuppet, not because his forum activity was determined to be trolling.

 7 
 on: March 29, 2023, 11:52:04 PM 
Started by roadman65 - Last post by webny99
Does anyone seriously believe MMM wasnít a troll at this point on the basis of his own post content?  If you were on the fence how is a second hand account from someone credible like 1 not enough evidence?

Here is the definition of trolling: to make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

I am not disputing that's what MMM was doing, but I maintain that his activity was really pretty mild trolling, even by this forum's standards. And because MMM managed to stay around for so long and even shared some personal information here, there was reason not to write him off immediately, and to think that he at least had some potential to contribute in a non-trolling matter.

It really doesn't matter now, and I'm not trying to defend MMM, but the discourse surrounding him seems to have gotten so extended and dramatized that I think it is worth pointing out he wasn't really that bad. But maybe his blurring of the line between acceptable and non-acceptable activity is partly why we're still so fascinated with him, even though we should have just closed the book and moved on long ago (which, ironically, is exactly what we would have done with a more egregious troll).

 8 
 on: March 29, 2023, 11:50:57 PM 
Started by roadman65 - Last post by Roadgeekteen
Does anyone seriously believe MMM wasnít a troll at this point on the basis of his own post content?  If you were on the fence how is a second hand account from someone credible like 1 not enough evidence?
Well MMM has been banned already, so that should be proof enough, as he wasn't getting banned pre discovery.

 9 
 on: March 29, 2023, 11:46:25 PM 
Started by jakeroot - Last post by Troubleshooter
Hereís one, from 2600 South onto Wildcat Way in Woods Cross, Utah.

This intersection was a doghouse until 2-3 years ago, when 2600 South was widened as part of a larger I-15 project. Initially this left turn was controlled by a FYA, but within a year it was converted to a protected left. My guess for why the change was made is the high left turn volumes, especially the movement from EB 2600 to NB Wildcat. That left-turn line often fails to clear in a cycle and frequently backs up into the main travel lanes.

Although I canít think of any at the moment, there are probably intersections that were initially FYAs but were converted to dual-left lanes, which in Utah require a protected-only left turn.

3 and 4 lane oncoming approaches should not have permissive turns across them.

 10 
 on: March 29, 2023, 11:37:20 PM 
Started by Mergingtraffic - Last post by Alps
Just realized CTDOT picked the worst week of the year to renumber I-691ís exits.  Out of towners going to the Daffodil Festival at Hubbard Park on 4/29 and 4/30 are going to have fun when their GPS tells them to get off Exit 4, and they end up getting off the new exit 4. 
are you inviting us to daffodil festival


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.