Francis Scott Key Bridge (I-695) complete collapse after large ship hits it

[Rothman]

In what world does posting on a forum thread "document disaster" or "steward legacy"?  How does the "archive remember"?  Nobody is going to dig through this thread 45 years from now and say, Aha! see? it's just like Scott said!  This place is basically just a social media space for geeks, amateur and professional, to chat about stuff that interests them—namely, roads.  You're not a noble saint suffering for the great cause of fundamental truth on here:  you're just a roadgeek having a discussion with the rest of us roadgeeks.  You need to get down off your high horse, sit on a stump, crack open a beer, and have a laugh with us.  80% of the reason we rip on you so much is that you seem unable to let go of the fantasy that your documenting your positions on here matters on iota in the grand scheme of things.

OK -- if advocacy and documentation is unimportant -- why do Rothman and VDeane so constantly promote and defend the strategic destruction of federally-aided Interstate highway infrastructure in Syracuse NY?

Rothman has been doing this for at least 3 years on various online forums, and gets defensive and confrontational at times when people have an opposite opinion.

My dude, sometimes an online discussion is just an online discussion. 

[Beltway]

why do y'all keep feeding the troll...

Because it's funny and entertaining.

Dealing with you and a few like you IS funny and entertaining.

[Max Rockatansky]

why do y'all keep feeding the troll...

Because it's funny and entertaining.

Dealing with you and a few like you IS funny and entertaining.

Your actions off forum suggest otherwise.

[Beltway]

why do y'all keep feeding the troll...

Because it's funny and entertaining.

Dealing with you and a few like you IS funny and entertaining.

Your actions off forum suggest otherwise.

That you are not funny and not entertaining, and not worthy of a good chuckle?

I very rarely have seen you elsewhere.

[Max Rockatansky]

why do y'all keep feeding the troll...

Because it's funny and entertaining.

Dealing with you and a few like you IS funny and entertaining.

Your actions off forum suggest otherwise.

That you are not funny and not entertaining, and not worthy of a good chuckle?

I very rarely have seen you elsewhere.

I wasn't aware that I was required to entertain you specifically.  I must have missed that in the forum rules.

[Beltway]

why do y'all keep feeding the troll...

Because it's funny and entertaining.

Dealing with you and a few like you IS funny and entertaining.

Your actions off forum suggest otherwise.

That you are not funny and not entertaining, and not worthy of a good chuckle?
I very rarely have seen you elsewhere.

I wasn't aware that I was required to entertain you specifically.  I must have missed that in the forum rules.

You're not required to entertain -- you do it naturally. And not in the way you may think.

[good chuckle!]

[Max Rockatansky]

why do y'all keep feeding the troll...

Because it's funny and entertaining.

Dealing with you and a few like you IS funny and entertaining.

Your actions off forum suggest otherwise.

That you are not funny and not entertaining, and not worthy of a good chuckle?
I very rarely have seen you elsewhere.

I wasn't aware that I was required to entertain you specifically.  I must have missed that in the forum rules.

You're not required to entertain -- you do it naturally.

So...am I entertaining you or not?  I'm leaning towards the former given you are up to almost 11 PM your time replying specifically to me.

[Beltway]

Here is something from the MTR archives, that I posted back then about 2005, in reference to the CS posters.

What is Creative Snipping? Why is it an objectionable practice?

Creative snipping (CS) is when a poster replies to another poster, and
deliberately removes portions of the previous poster's quoted text, to
alter the context of what the other person said (an entire thought on an
issue), and/or to completely remove key material from the post reply.
CS is NOT the normal snipping of text that is not key to the debate. It
is the deliberate editing and altering of complete thoughts and
statements of other posters.

Various reasons why it is done (one or more of these may be used in one
post)
1. To completely eliminate a key point(s).
2. To "selectively thin" an argument with multiple interrelated points,
to reduce the number of points to rebut, and/or to "weaken" the
argument to be rebutted, and/or to twist the overall fact base of the
text.
3. Removing a key point from a sentence or paragraph or series of small
paragraphs can make the rest of the entire thought to look absurd or
meaningless.
4. A passive-aggressive way to attempt to annoy and anger other posters.
CS, among its other problems, is a rude obnoxious practice,
especially when repeated after repeated complaints. The CS poster
may try to "blame" the ensuing conflict on the one complaining about
the CS.
5. To attempt to prolong a bogus argument endlessly rather than have to
immediately concede defeat.

Once it is done:
1. The CS poster can derive various conclusions that would not be
possible if the entire passage was quoted.
a. A solid logical argument can be made to appear false.
b. A solid rebuttal can be made to appear insufficient.
c. A solid logical argument can be made to appear absurd or
meaningless.
d. Key facts can be ignored in the reply.
e. A false argument can be made to appear true.
2. The CS poster can prolong an argument through repeated cycles when he
essentially had no cogent argument to begin with. This wastes
people's time and wastes Usenet resources, producing many more posts
than necessary.
3. The CS poster may provoke an argument about "Usenet etiquette" if the
poster who had his post snipped complains. This resulting argument
about "Usenet etiquette" itself can be a diversionary tactic to
obfuscate the original topical issue, and to attempt to discourage
the other poster from continuing the discussion.
4. Related to #3, all this conflict is calculated by the CS poster to
discourage onlookers from attempting to engage him with rebuttals on
various issues in the future.
5. Replies by other posters to the post with the altered context will
repeat the error as many times as replies are made. Replies to the
reply with the altered context will often multiply the error. This
is one of the most serious problems with CS. Of course, the
CS posters realize this.
6. If the poster who was snipped rebuilds the context, that forces him
to waste time to retrieve the text from his previous post.
Meanwhile the post that he is replying to often has replies based on
the altered context. The CS poster may "complain" that the other
poster is not replying to his latest statement(s), which was based
on altered context. Rebuilding the context in that one post does not
address the serious problems in #5. The flow of the discussion is
disrupted, again an attempt by the CS poster to "win" the debate by
tactics and not by truth and substance.
7. Posters on a particular "side" of the debate sometimes archive
certain posts from posters on their "side", on their newsreader,
and/or then print a copy for further reference. With CS, they will
get a slanted interpretation of the debate.

Typical CS poster excuses when confronted:
1. "I didn't do it!!" It can be easily shown if it was done.
2. "Usenet etiquette says that you only should quote the minimum
necessary to establish context for your response!!" That is true,
but the CS posters often break sentences in half, or break small
paragraphs in half, or omit a key small paragraph, with essential
context disappearing. A key sentence may disappear from the front,
middle or end of a small paragraph, altering/editing context. That
is a breach of fair debating techniques, any way you slice it.
3. "What is quoted is not that important. If you have a decent
newsreader, others can easily look back through the thread to look
at the previous post!!" This is an insult to the reader who has an
old newsreader that does not thread posts. If a poster is posting
through Deja News, the threading structure is there, but the
response time to pull up each post is slow. Even with a top-quality
newsreader, in a busy thread it can sometimes be difficult to find
the quoted post, especially if it was posted 3 days or more
previously. In any event, if the CS is not confronted, then how
will readers know to look back for the true context? Constantly
referring back to previous posts is pretty impractical anyhow.
4. "You expect me to quote everything that you write!!" That's
nonsense, reverse logic. I write economically and produce small,
concise blocks of text. However, in a heavy debate with someone,
I typically do quote everything they wrote in the previous post,
unless a portion is obviously not in question. Sometimes, I'm
reluctant to delete "> >" material if it seems pertinent to the
discussion. Single quoted ">" material is even more important.
I've seen a few posters who often write massive amounts of text,
but I write the minimum possible; to save space and to express my
thoughts in more easily readable blocks. Most thoughts can be
expressed in 15 lines of text or less. I have a series of "issue"
website articles to document my positions on issues that take ~50
lines of text or more. This one is not there yet...
5. "There's no Usenet Law that says that I have to address everything
you wrote!!" More binary logic. There's no reason for you
to reply to posts at all, if you can't do it appropriately within
reasonable guidelines.

-----

CS example where Poster #1 posts a logical argument:

Poster #1 said:
"I believe "E" because of "A" and "B" and "C" and "G".

Poster #2 replies:
> Poster #1 said:
> "I believe "E" because of "A" and "B"

That's a bogus argument because "A" and "B" does not prove "E"!!!

-- or --

CS example using conceptual paragraph structure here -

Poster #1 said:
[[small paragraph "A"]]
[[small paragraph "B"]]
[[small paragraph "C"]]

Poster #2 replies:
> Poster #1 said:
> [[small paragraph "A"]]
> [[small paragraph "B"]]

[poster #2 tries to refute "A" and "B" without "C" in his post, when "C"
was key to the entire complete thought]

-----

Those were 2 simple examples. There are many different possibilities.

-----

Conclusions:
1. Creative snipping is indeed one of the most egregious practices on
Usenet, as the above discussion clearly points out.
2. It is a simple matter to reply to a post and to have adequate
quoted context from the previous poster.
3. Creative snipping is the sign of a losing argument/ideology.

[kphoger]

I am not going to change my opinion

Then a forum is not the appropriate place for whatever it is you're trying to do.  A forum is a place for open discussion and debate.  If you're already committed to not changing your opinion, then what you really want is an echo chamber.

I have been completely away from this group twice for 4 years or more, and I can do it again without it fazing me.

I've taken my share of extended breaks from the forum too.  But I'm not delusional enough to think that my presence on here is all that significant, let alone vital.  You, however, do seem to be delusional in that way.  We're all just weirdos on an internet forum, nothing more.

AARoads isn't that important in the overall scheme of things

Indeed, and one of these days it'll just go *poof* and disappear into the oblivion of the wayback machine.  All the more reason to wonder why you think that your pontificating in this thread is documentary in nature.

OK -- if advocacy and documentation is unimportant

I never said it isn't important.  My point was that what you're doing on this forum is neither advocacy nor documentation, because it's just a roadgeek forum.  It's just us nerds in here.  You might as well type up a manifesto, stuff it in a bottle with a cork, and float it down the river.

We can also see the effect of severing a metropolitan freeway -- the traffic doesn't just go "poof" and go somewhere else -- people around Baltimore are constantly complaining about the major increased levels of traffic on I-95, I-895 and I-695 West and on surface roads.

I'll remember you said this the next time you say that the existing capacity (without the Key Bridge) under/around Baltimore Harbor is adequate.

Glad I'm not the only one who caught that.

My dude, sometimes an online discussion is just an online discussion.

Edited for accuracy.

[Beltway]

I am not going to change my opinion

Then a forum is not the appropriate place for whatever it is you're trying to do.  A forum is a place for open discussion and debate.  If you're already committed to not changing your opinion, then what you really want is an echo chamber.

I agree and today I have in essence said that I am about done (if not done) posting about the Key Bridge here.

People can read any updates from me on my website article if they want.

[Max Rockatansky]

Hobby websites aren't much of a flex on this forum.

Speak for yourself.  Alan Scotty's having created a website without any bulldozers or other construction equipment has already convinced me to vote for him for Grand Unified Alan in the next election.  Well, I would do so, if only I hadn't recently misplaced my PANIC (Pfangle of Alanland & Nimyba Identification Card / Polling of Alanland National Identification Card) credentials...

I'm voting for Dunes-Flamingo.  Nobody is changing my opinion, and I don't care what any of you say.  I will continue to restate my opinion as it is absolute fact. 

[Plutonic Panda]

Oh my God

[Max Rockatansky]

Oh my God

I'm glad we had cameras on standby to capture this reaction:

[Plutonic Panda]

Oh my God

I'm glad we had cameras on standby to capture this reaction:

That acting is almost as bad as this:

Or this but this one is funny

[Max Rockatansky]

Is there another way to mark the occasion when Garbage Day arrives?  If there I'm not aware of it.

[Plutonic Panda]

Some might say the actor in the absurdly long death scene used creative snipping in mastering his craft. Or CS as Kenneth would say.

[Plutonic Panda]

Is there another way to mark the occasion when Garbage Day arrives?  If there I'm not aware of it.

If you got 5 minutes to blow this lady has her own way of dealing with the garbage people when she's not at Walmart high on meth trying to get people to see the light of Jesus:

[LilianaUwU]

snipping [...] co[...]C[...]k

[sprjus4]

[Beltway]

Here is your rank and file road geek.

[Plutonic Panda]

Here is something from the MTR archives, that I posted back then about 2005, in reference to the CS posters.

What is Creative Snipping? Why is it an objectionable practice?

Creative snipping (CS) is when a poster replies to another poster, and
deliberately removes portions of the previous poster's quoted text, to
alter the context of what the other person said (an entire thought on an
issue), and/or to completely remove key material from the post reply.
CS is NOT the normal snipping of text that is not key to the debate. It
is the deliberate editing and altering of complete thoughts and
statements of other posters.

Various reasons why it is done (one or more of these may be used in one
post)
1. To completely eliminate a key point(s).
2. To "selectively thin" an argument with multiple interrelated points,
to reduce the number of points to rebut, and/or to "weaken" the
argument to be rebutted, and/or to twist the overall fact base of the
text.
3. Removing a key point from a sentence or paragraph or series of small
paragraphs can make the rest of the entire thought to look absurd or
meaningless.
4. A passive-aggressive way to attempt to annoy and anger other posters.
CS, among its other problems, is a rude obnoxious practice,
especially when repeated after repeated complaints. The CS poster
may try to "blame" the ensuing conflict on the one complaining about
the CS.
5. To attempt to prolong a bogus argument endlessly rather than have to
immediately concede defeat.

Once it is done:
1. The CS poster can derive various conclusions that would not be
possible if the entire passage was quoted.
a. A solid logical argument can be made to appear false.
b. A solid rebuttal can be made to appear insufficient.
c. A solid logical argument can be made to appear absurd or
meaningless.
d. Key facts can be ignored in the reply.
e. A false argument can be made to appear true.
2. The CS poster can prolong an argument through repeated cycles when he
essentially had no cogent argument to begin with. This wastes
people's time and wastes Usenet resources, producing many more posts
than necessary.
3. The CS poster may provoke an argument about "Usenet etiquette" if the
poster who had his post snipped complains. This resulting argument
about "Usenet etiquette" itself can be a diversionary tactic to
obfuscate the original topical issue, and to attempt to discourage
the other poster from continuing the discussion.
4. Related to #3, all this conflict is calculated by the CS poster to
discourage onlookers from attempting to engage him with rebuttals on
various issues in the future.
5. Replies by other posters to the post with the altered context will
repeat the error as many times as replies are made. Replies to the
reply with the altered context will often multiply the error. This
is one of the most serious problems with CS. Of course, the
CS posters realize this.
6. If the poster who was snipped rebuilds the context, that forces him
to waste time to retrieve the text from his previous post.
Meanwhile the post that he is replying to often has replies based on
the altered context. The CS poster may "complain" that the other
poster is not replying to his latest statement(s), which was based
on altered context. Rebuilding the context in that one post does not
address the serious problems in #5. The flow of the discussion is
disrupted, again an attempt by the CS poster to "win" the debate by
tactics and not by truth and substance.
7. Posters on a particular "side" of the debate sometimes archive
certain posts from posters on their "side", on their newsreader,
and/or then print a copy for further reference. With CS, they will
get a slanted interpretation of the debate.

Typical CS poster excuses when confronted:
1. "I didn't do it!!" It can be easily shown if it was done.
2. "Usenet etiquette says that you only should quote the minimum
necessary to establish context for your response!!" That is true,
but the CS posters often break sentences in half, or break small
paragraphs in half, or omit a key small paragraph, with essential
context disappearing. A key sentence may disappear from the front,
middle or end of a small paragraph, altering/editing context. That
is a breach of fair debating techniques, any way you slice it.
3. "What is quoted is not that important. If you have a decent
newsreader, others can easily look back through the thread to look
at the previous post!!" This is an insult to the reader who has an
old newsreader that does not thread posts. If a poster is posting
through Deja News, the threading structure is there, but the
response time to pull up each post is slow. Even with a top-quality
newsreader, in a busy thread it can sometimes be difficult to find
the quoted post, especially if it was posted 3 days or more
previously. In any event, if the CS is not confronted, then how
will readers know to look back for the true context? Constantly
referring back to previous posts is pretty impractical anyhow.
4. "You expect me to quote everything that you write!!" That's
nonsense, reverse logic. I write economically and produce small,
concise blocks of text. However, in a heavy debate with someone,
I typically do quote everything they wrote in the previous post,
unless a portion is obviously not in question. Sometimes, I'm
reluctant to delete "> >" material if it seems pertinent to the
discussion. Single quoted ">" material is even more important.
I've seen a few posters who often write massive amounts of text,
but I write the minimum possible; to save space and to express my
thoughts in more easily readable blocks. Most thoughts can be
expressed in 15 lines of text or less. I have a series of "issue"
website articles to document my positions on issues that take ~50
lines of text or more. This one is not there yet...
5. "There's no Usenet Law that says that I have to address everything
you wrote!!" More binary logic. There's no reason for you
to reply to posts at all, if you can't do it appropriately within
reasonable guidelines.

-----

CS example where Poster #1 posts a logical argument:

Poster #1 said:
"I believe "E" because of "A" and "B" and "C" and "G".

Poster #2 replies:
> Poster #1 said:
> "I believe "E" because of "A" and "B"

That's a bogus argument because "A" and "B" does not prove "E"!!!

-- or --

CS example using conceptual paragraph structure here -

Poster #1 said:
[[small paragraph "A"]]
[[small paragraph "B"]]
[[small paragraph "C"]]

Poster #2 replies:
> Poster #1 said:
> [[small paragraph "A"]]
> [[small paragraph "B"]]

[poster #2 tries to refute "A" and "B" without "C" in his post, when "C"
was key to the entire complete thought]

-----

Those were 2 simple examples. There are many different possibilities.

-----

Conclusions:
1. Creative snipping is indeed one of the most egregious practices on
Usenet, as the above discussion clearly points out.
2. It is a simple matter to reply to a post and to have adequate
quoted context from the previous poster.
3. Creative snipping is the sign of a losing argument/ideology.

This is my favorite forum quote. I'm going to steal creative snipping since the chances of me coming across anyone on this forum irl are very slim. Beltway, the problem here is your post insists upon itself.

[Beltway]

Conclusions:
1. Creative snipping is indeed one of the most egregious practices on
Usenet, as the above discussion clearly points out.
2. It is a simple matter to reply to a post and to have adequate
quoted context from the previous poster.
3. Creative snipping is the sign of a losing argument/ideology.

This is my favorite forum quote. I'm going to steal creative snipping since the chances of me coming across anyone on this forum irl are very slim. Beltway, the problem here is your post insists upon itself.

That was just for fun -- someone talked about forums not having archives and I went and extracted a fun post from Google Groups archives from 20 years ago.

It doesn't mean that there is a major problem with CS posters here.

[GaryV]

I am not going to change my opinion

Then a forum is not the appropriate place for whatever it is you're trying to do.  A forum is a place for open discussion and debate.  If you're already committed to not changing your opinion, then what you really want is an echo chamber.

I agree and today I have in essence said that I am about done (if not done) posting about the Key Bridge here.

People can read any updates from me on my website article if they want.

Gee, somebody creatively snipped.

[Beltway]

I am not going to change my opinion

Then a forum is not the appropriate place for whatever it is you're trying to do.  A forum is a place for open discussion and debate.  If you're already committed to not changing your opinion, then what you really want is an echo chamber.

I agree and today I have in essence said that I am about done (if not done) posting about the Key Bridge here.
People can read any updates from me on my website article if they want.

Gee, somebody creatively snipped.

Gee, somebody creatively blew groceries.

[Max Rockatansky]

I am not going to change my opinion

Then a forum is not the appropriate place for whatever it is you're trying to do.  A forum is a place for open discussion and debate.  If you're already committed to not changing your opinion, then what you really want is an echo chamber.

I agree and today I have in essence said that I am about done (if not done) posting about the Key Bridge here.
People can read any updates from me on my website article if they want.

Gee, somebody creatively snipped.

Gee, somebody creatively blew groceries.

Leave the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles out of this.