Minor things that bother you

[Max Rockatansky]

I can flame‑war with the best of them -- I did plenty of that on the old Usenet.

Oh, bullshit. You couldn't troll your way out of a wet paper bag. There were some fine trolls in misc.transport.road, and you never one of them.

I wasn't talking about trolling -- I was talking about flaming. Some of which would not be allowed in this forum. And not just on m.t.r -- but on at least a dozen other newsgroups that had nothing to do with highways.

See, it is things like what I bolded that tend to indicate to me that you probably aren't exactly the life of the party. 

[Scott5114]

Or the administrators could do their job and ban you.

Unless I've misunderstood things, the decision is beyond my level at this point.

[Beltway]

I can flame‑war with the best of them -- I did plenty of that on the old Usenet.

Oh, bullshit. You couldn't troll your way out of a wet paper bag. There were some fine trolls in misc.transport.road, and you never one of them.

I wasn't talking about trolling -- I was talking about flaming. Some of which would not be allowed in this forum. And not just on m.t.r -- but on at least a dozen other newsgroups that had nothing to do with highways.

See, it is things like what I bolded that tend to indicate to me that you probably aren't exactly the life of the party. 

Back then, "flaming" meant long‑form argument in threads that were already on fire -- not personal sniping. Nobody was the "life of the party"; it was just the culture of Usenet. I didn't go around starting fights, but if a thread was already a bonfire, I wasn't shy about stepping into it -- or returning fire when fired upon.

[Max Rockatansky]

I can flame‑war with the best of them -- I did plenty of that on the old Usenet.

Oh, bullshit. You couldn't troll your way out of a wet paper bag. There were some fine trolls in misc.transport.road, and you never one of them.

I wasn't talking about trolling -- I was talking about flaming. Some of which would not be allowed in this forum. And not just on m.t.r -- but on at least a dozen other newsgroups that had nothing to do with highways.

See, it is things like what I bolded that tend to indicate to me that you probably aren't exactly the life of the party. 

Back then, "flaming" meant long‑form argument in threads that were already on fire -- not personal sniping. Nobody was the "life of the party"; it was just the culture of Usenet. I didn't go around starting fights, but if a thread was already a bonfire, I wasn't shy about stepping into it -- or returning fire when fired upon.

I was going to leave the "flaming" part alone, but okay...  Anyways, what I was getting at was the part recreationally arguing with people in online news groups.  Not exactly the most thrilling of hobbies there. 

[Beltway]

See, it is things like what I bolded that tend to indicate to me that you probably aren't exactly the life of the party. 

Back then, "flaming" meant long‑form argument in threads that were already on fire -- not personal sniping. Nobody was the "life of the party"; it was just the culture of Usenet. I didn't go around starting fights, but if a thread was already a bonfire, I wasn't shy about stepping into it -- or returning fire when fired upon.

I was going to leave the "flaming" part alone, but okay...  Anyways, what I was getting at was the part recreationally arguing with people in online news groups.  Not exactly the most thrilling of hobbies there. 

It is not and never was "recreation." It was work. Sometimes unpleasant work, sometimes necessary work, but never recreation.

[Max Rockatansky]

See, it is things like what I bolded that tend to indicate to me that you probably aren't exactly the life of the party. 

Back then, "flaming" meant long‑form argument in threads that were already on fire -- not personal sniping. Nobody was the "life of the party"; it was just the culture of Usenet. I didn't go around starting fights, but if a thread was already a bonfire, I wasn't shy about stepping into it -- or returning fire when fired upon.

I was going to leave the "flaming" part alone, but okay...  Anyways, what I was getting at was the part recreationally arguing with people in online news groups.  Not exactly the most thrilling of hobbies there. 

It is not and never was "recreation." It was work. Sometimes unpleasant work, sometimes necessary work, but never recreation.

Referring to all that as "work" really isn't persuading me that you are "fun guy."

[gonealookin]

Or the administrators could do their job and ban you.

Unless I've misunderstood things, the decision is beyond my level at this point.

The Beltway vs. Max (and others) thing needs to be diverted to a "containment thread".  None of it has much to do with Minor Things That Bother You.

[Molandfreak]

See, it is things like what I bolded that tend to indicate to me that you probably aren't exactly the life of the party. 

Back then, "flaming" meant long‑form argument in threads that were already on fire -- not personal sniping. Nobody was the "life of the party"; it was just the culture of Usenet. I didn't go around starting fights, but if a thread was already a bonfire, I wasn't shy about stepping into it -- or returning fire when fired upon.

I was going to leave the "flaming" part alone, but okay...  Anyways, what I was getting at was the part recreationally arguing with people in online news groups.  Not exactly the most thrilling of hobbies there. 

It is not and never was "recreation." It was work. Sometimes unpleasant work, sometimes necessary work, but never recreation.

You exhibit the same behavioral patterns over and over again, and nothing changes. At some point, I would think something would click and you would at least make an effort to get along with others, but here we are.

[Beltway]

It is not and never was "recreation." It was work. Sometimes unpleasant work, sometimes necessary work, but never recreation.

You exhibit the same behavioral patterns over and over again, and nothing changes. At some point, I would think something would click and you would at least make an effort to get along with others, but here we are.

AARoads Forum► Non-Road Boards► Off-Topic► Minor things that bother you

Off-Topic
Not directly road related, just anything else.

It's Off‑Topic. Banter happens.

[Molandfreak]

It is not and never was "recreation." It was work. Sometimes unpleasant work, sometimes necessary work, but never recreation.

You exhibit the same behavioral patterns over and over again, and nothing changes. At some point, I would think something would click and you would at least make an effort to get along with others, but here we are.

AARoads Forum► Non-Road Boards► Off-Topic► Minor things that bother you

Off-Topic
Not directly road related, just anything else.

It's Off‑Topic. Banter happens.

Sure, but there's still a minimum standard of cordiality that is expected. You seem to have no issue taking your personal issues with others to Alex, anyways.

[SSOWorld]

[Big John]

[formulanone]

Oh look, another stupid standoff thread with no actual content.

Take your pettiness to personal messages, the rest of us don't need to wade through this trash.

[SSOWorld]

Oh look, another stupid standoff thread with no actual content.

Take your pettiness to personal messages, the rest of us don't need to wade through this trash.

Can't stand the heat?

get out of the kitchen.

[kphoger]

None of it has much to do with Minor Things That Bother You.

Is that a minor thing that bothers you?

[kkt]

Of course, the Brits will also call it a programmy thing because they misspell "program."

I love how Noah Webster, an American, changed the spelling of programme when he published his dictionary, and now an American is claiming the Brits misspell the word just because they didn't follow along with Webster.

(Shrugs) The Brits took a stab at a language. The Americans then improved on the Brits' efforts.

Johnson published the first British dictionary in 1755.  Webster could have just used the same spellings, but he had to try to "fix" it by spelling it a little bit more like it's pronounced.  But Webster's spellings are still not very close to how English is pronounced.  So now we have two standards, neither of which are spelled the way they sound.

[GaryV]

Toronto Maple Leafs

And why isn't that Leaves?

[kkt]

See, it is things like what I bolded that tend to indicate to me that you probably aren't exactly the life of the party. 

Back then, "flaming" meant long‑form argument in threads that were already on fire -- not personal sniping. Nobody was the "life of the party"; it was just the culture of Usenet. I didn't go around starting fights, but if a thread was already a bonfire, I wasn't shy about stepping into it -- or returning fire when fired upon.

I was going to leave the "flaming" part alone, but okay...  Anyways, what I was getting at was the part recreationally arguing with people in online news groups.  Not exactly the most thrilling of hobbies there. 

It is not and never was "recreation." It was work. Sometimes unpleasant work, sometimes necessary work, but never recreation.

Necessary work?  How many people have had their minds changed by Usenet posts?

[Molandfreak]

Oh look, another stupid standoff thread with no actual content.

Take your pettiness to personal messages, the rest of us don't need to wade through this trash.

Can't stand the heat?

get out of the kitchen.

FTR

[formulanone]

Oh look, another stupid standoff thread with no actual content.

Take your pettiness to personal messages, the rest of us don't need to wade through this trash.

Can't stand the heat?

get out of the kitchen.

Didn't think I'd have to finally tell a moderator to deal with those off-topic, but here we are.

You want every thread to look like the ending fight of Blazing Saddles? That's what you're allowing.

We've got a lot of members spewing the same old shit in every thread, like children who just learned a new word. Frankly, it's getting tiresome seeing it everywhere without meaningful connections to the topics other than to harass each other.

[Beltway]

I remember being marked down on some writing assignment because I used the British spelling.  I wrote "harbour" or something and got the big red line.  "Spell it 'harbor'".

In naval and WW II forums I sometimes see a poster write "Pearl Harbour"

In aviation forums I sometimes see a poster write "aircrafts" for the plural of "aircraft"

That tells you something about what is their native language.

[Molandfreak]

Oh look, another stupid standoff thread with no actual content.

Take your pettiness to personal messages, the rest of us don't need to wade through this trash.

Can't stand the heat?

get out of the kitchen.

Didn't think I'd have to finally tell a moderator to deal with those off-topic, but here we are.

You want every thread to look like the ending fight of Blazing Saddles? That's what you're allowing.

We've got a lot of members spewing the same old shit in every thread, like children who just learned a new word. Frankly, it's getting tiresome seeing it everywhere without meaningful connections to the topics other than to harass each other.

Both sidesing the issue instead of addressing the actual problem ironically allows the actual problem to continue unscathed here.

[freebrickproductions]

Of course, the Brits will also call it a programmy thing because they misspell "program."

I love how Noah Webster, an American, changed the spelling of programme when he published his dictionary, and now an American is claiming the Brits misspell the word just because they didn't follow along with Webster.

(Shrugs) The Brits took a stab at a language. The Americans then improved on the Brits' efforts.

Johnson published the first British dictionary in 1755.  Webster could have just used the same spellings, but he had to try to "fix" it by spelling it a little bit more like it's pronounced.  But Webster's spellings are still not very close to how English is pronounced.  So now we have two standards, neither of which are spelled the way they sound.

There's also some things that Webster and his pals (including Ben Franklin!) tried to do that never caught-on, such as replacing the "ph" in words with "f" (so "elephant" would have been spelled "elefant", for example). But yeah, Webster was very much trying to "simplify" the spelling of the English language.

[Beltway]

There's also some things that Webster and his pals (including Ben Franklin!) tried to do that never caught-on, such as replacing the "ph" in words with "f" (so "elephant" would have been spelled "elefant", for example). But yeah, Webster was very much trying to "simplify" the spelling of the English language.

Noah Webster did try to reform spelling -- but most of his reforms failed.

Benjamin Franklin went even further -- a whole new alphabet. He designed an entire alternative alphabet with six new letters and no c, j, q, w, x, or y. He failed too.

[kkt]

Bernard Shaw tried too.  His proposals didn't catch on either.