Minor things that bother you

[Molandfreak]

I was pointing out that in this thread, people shifted from the Key Bridge discussion into personal commentary instead of addressing the federal‑aid points I raised.

And I was pointing out that you're a big pot calling all the kettles black.

You're responding to your interpretation of my posting history, not to anything I actually wrote in this thread. I raised federal‑aid sequencing and acceptance points. If you want to discuss those, I'm here for it. If the conversation is shifting into personal commentary instead, that's a different discussion entirely.

You're pulling in posts from years ago

If by 'years' you mean 'less than nine months', then yeah, sure.

The timeline doesn't change the fact that you're reaching back into unrelated threads to avoid addressing the point at hand. I'm talking about the Key Bridge; you're talking about me. Those are separate conversations.

The reason I pulled those posts in is to remind you that you've done your share of mud-flinging,

And I've already said I'm not discussing past threads here. I'm staying on the topic I raised. If others want to shift into personality talk instead of substance, that's their choice -- but it doesn't obligate me to follow them there.

The posts you're referring to weren't some abstract "history." About ninety percent of what you're pulling in came from the Key Bridge threads themselves -- threads where you and others were flooding the board with off‑topic jokes, personal "commentary," riffing and low‑effort derailments instead of discussing the project. That context matters. I'm staying on substance here; you're reaching backward to avoid it.

[Rothman]

Is the substance in the room with us right now?

[vdeane]

You're responding to you 'feel' and how you interpret my posts, not to anything I actually wrote in this thread. I'm not discussing I‑81 or any past topic here -- I made a specific point about how people shifted this thread into personal commentary instead of addressing the federal‑aid issues I raised.

Critiquing my posting style isn't the same thing as engaging with the substance. If you don't want to discuss the Key Bridge, that's fine, but that means we're talking about different things. I'm staying on the topic I raised; you're talking about me. Those are separate conversations.

You are aware that this is the "minor things that bother you" thread and not the Key Bridge thread, right?  I was simply responding to the content of that post where you were complaining about how people respond to you.

[Beltway]

You are aware that this is the "minor things that bother you" thread and not the Key Bridge thread, right? 

I used Key Bridge as the example of the behavior that bothers me -- discussions shifting into personal commentary instead of addressing substance. That fits this thread. If someone wants to discuss the federal‑aid issues themselves, that belongs in the Key Bridge thread. Two different conversations.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm thinking we need another two page Creative Snip. 

[kphoger]

my posting history ... in this thread ... doesn't change the fact that ... I'm  ... into personality talk instead of substance ... flooding the board with ... personal "commentary," ... and low‑effort derailments

I'm thinking we need another two page Creative Snip. 

No need for a whole two pages' worth.

[hotdogPi]

Fun fact: The Governor of Wisconsin has the power of creative snipping in real life.

[Beltway]

When you insert that many ellipses (seven) into a quote, you're not just shortening it -- you're removing the parts that establish context, scope, and reasoning. Each ellipsis represents an unknown amount of omitted text, and seven of them fundamentally alter the structure of what I wrote. At that point, it's no longer a faithful quotation.

Ellipses are used to remove non‑essential filler while preserving meaning. Academic standards don't permit ellipses to change meaning.

[Max Rockatansky]

my posting history ... in this thread ... doesn't change the fact that ... I'm  ... into personality talk instead of substance ... flooding the board with ... personal "commentary," ... and low‑effort derailments

I'm thinking we need another two page Creative Snip. 

No need for a whole two pages' worth.

Let me rephrase; there are two pages of Beltway posts at least that ought to get a creative snip. 

[kphoger]

When you insert that many ellipses (seven) into a quote, you're not just shortening it -- you're removing the parts that establish context, scope, and reasoning. Each ellipsis represents an unknown amount of omitted text, and seven of them fundamentally alter the structure of what I wrote. At that point, it's no longer a faithful quotation.

I like to call it "Creative Snipping", or CS for short.  Seven is a number that traditionally represents heavenly perfection, so I like to think that my snipping is a work of transcendent and perfect creativity.

[Beltway]

Minor things that bother you --

The fact that the cause of spontaneous human combustion (SHC) has never been determined.

[NE2]

When Jamal Khashoggi was in the news, he was cuh sho' gee and later cuh sho' jee.  They seem to pronounce it the way it reads, and then later learn a different way.  Later they started saying something weird, probably in an attempt to be more accurate.  I seem to remember him being called cuh shook' shee.  If I'm not willing to put in the effort to to say it correctly, I would just mess up the pronunciation in an easy way rather than try to be as accurate as possible and mess it up in a way that's closer to the native dialect.

Another fun wrinkle in this is the "KH" in his name is pronounced in Arabic as what sounds approximately simultaneously as a "hush" and "kush" sound that does not exist in English and almost impossible to replicate for English speakers.

... kh is just the sound of hocking a loogie. Pretty sure English speakers can pronounce that. Now, Arabic h vs. H on the other hand...

Hailey Welch wants to bring sharia law to the bedroom.

[Max Rockatansky]

The fact that the cause of spontaneous human combustion (SHC) has never been determined.

Isn't that a "good" thing?  A working scientific theory would probably require a large number of folks regularly bursting into flames.

[kphoger]

A working scientific theory would probably require a large number of folks regularly bursting into flames.

The good news:  you're part of the control group.

The bad news:  they set you on fire anyway.

[vdeane]

Minor things that bother you --

The fact that the cause of spontaneous human combustion (SHC) has never been determined.

I believe it's caused by eating lettuce and then getting diarrhea.  That's why they call it "explosive".

[wxfree]

Minor things that bother you --

The fact that the cause of spontaneous human combustion (SHC) has never been determined.

I believe it's caused by eating lettuce and then getting diarrhea.  That's why they call it "explosive".

Has anyone ever gotten the implosive version?  Does it go both ways?

[Max Rockatansky]

Minor things that bother you --

The fact that the cause of spontaneous human combustion (SHC) has never been determined.

I believe it's caused by eating lettuce and then getting diarrhea.  That's why they call it "explosive".

Has anyone ever gotten the implosive version?  Does it go both ways?

Wouldn't that be like the South Park episode which had people eating food via their butthole and pooping it out of their mouths?

[LilianaUwU]

The fact that the cause of spontaneous human combustion (SHC) has never been determined.

Isn't that a "good" thing?  A working scientific theory would probably require a large number of folks regularly bursting into flames.

That's the thing -- it is extraordinarily rare -- but there are forensically documented cases of SHC that can't be explained by any known science.

Each case shares a pattern: extreme body destruction, minimal environmental damage, and unclear ignition.

It's pretty blatant that in every single one of those cases there was foul play but it was hidden by authorities for whatever reason.

[kphoger]

It's pretty blatant that in every single one of those cases there was foul play but it was hidden by authorities for whatever reason.

You should take off the tin-foil hat before typing next time.

[LilianaUwU]

It's pretty blatant that in every single one of those cases there was foul play but it was hidden by authorities for whatever reason.

You should take off the tin-foil hat before typing next time.

What, you want me to believe that people just explode all of a sudden, and that there's no scientific explanation for it?

[kphoger]

What, you want me to believe that people just explode all of a sudden, and that there's no scientific explanation for it?

Probably not.  Maybe, but probably not.  (Well, technically, if science hasn't explained it, then there is by definition no scientific explanation, but you know what I mean.)

But that's not the same thing as saying it's obvious that there was a coverup in every single case.

[Beltway]

It's pretty blatant that in every single one of those cases there was foul play but it was hidden by authorities for whatever reason.

You should take off the tin-foil hat before typing next time.

What, you want me to believe that people just explode all of a sudden, and that there's no scientific explanation for it?

Actually they investigated thoroughly and ruled that there was no foul play or any known enemies. Science doesn't know everything -- new things are being found regularly.

[Max Rockatansky]

Exploding into a waxy ball of fire seems to me like a pretty foul way to go. 

[Scott5114]

Actually they investigated thoroughly and ruled that there was no foul play or any known enemies. Science doesn't know everything --

--and neither do the cops.

[Beltway]

Actually they investigated thoroughly and ruled that there was no foul play or any known enemies. Science doesn't know everything --

--and neither do the cops.

Sure -- cops don't know everything either. But in the documented SHC‑associated cases, the investigations weren't just a couple of patrol officers eyeballing a scene. They involved full fire‑scene analysis, medical examiners, lab work, interviews, and background checks.

The point is simply that the evidence in those cases didn't support foul play. The burn patterns matched slow, smoldering ignition in a low‑airflow environment, not explosions, attacks, or anything criminal. That's why the official findings ruled out enemies or homicide -- not because the cops "knew everything," but because the physical evidence didn't point to foul play.