Your Favorite Forum Quotes

[thspfc]

Mr. Unlimited Breadsticks...this is a part of the planning map that can be edited by anyone. Last I saw, it was marked as connecting Alanland and the Perkins Union.

At this point, are you just smashing the keyboard and posting the result?

Weird mashup (Moland wasn't responding to NE2), but two good quotes, the first good enough to have now been quoted twice in this thread.

At this point, are you just smashing the keyboard and posting the result?

[1995hoo]

Most people who are constipated don't give a shit.

[kphoger]

Oh man, I just got some good laughs revisiting this whole thread:

Idea for a new city: I-93 near (new) exit 42 in Massachusetts would be called "Naranja" (taking a small part of Andover), with the J pronounced as it is in English. It would have a permanent population of about 2000, with its main claim to fame being a La Quinta hotel, two restaurants (Chili's and The Chateau), a Mobil with a Dunkin inside, and some office buildings. It would be a control city on I-93.

[Scott5114]

this won't catch fire in milk, will it?

[thspfc]

As an example, I wouldn't mind being in a boat in a category five hurricane we're going through the Drake passage and having my boat capsized but it wouldn't be very fun swimming afterwards. But still, I guess it could be cool if you ended up getting rescued.

[Plutonic Panda]

As an example, I wouldn't mind being in a boat in a category five hurricane we're going through the Drake passage and having my boat capsized but it wouldn't be very fun swimming afterwards. But still, I guess it could be cool if you ended up getting rescued.

My bad I don't understand, I've never been down that way, but I plan on going someday. And if possible, it would be cool to experience some of the worst storms to see the extreme that this planet has to offer. The outcome is uncertain of the experience being unforgettable unless ya know.

[Max Rockatansky]

As an example, I wouldn't mind being in a boat in a category five hurricane we're going through the Drake passage and having my boat capsized but it wouldn't be very fun swimming afterwards. But still, I guess it could be cool if you ended up getting rescued.

My bad I don't understand, I've never been down that way, but I plan on going someday. And if possible, it would be cool to experience some of the worst storms to see the extreme that this planet has to offer. The outcome is uncertain of the experience being unforgettable unless ya know.

I can't imagine Drake Passage often gets tropical cyclones with much frequency.  Does anyone have any reliable data on this?

[Plutonic Panda]

As an example, I wouldn't mind being in a boat in a category five hurricane we're going through the Drake passage and having my boat capsized but it wouldn't be very fun swimming afterwards. But still, I guess it could be cool if you ended up getting rescued.

My bad I don't understand, I've never been down that way, but I plan on going someday. And if possible, it would be cool to experience some of the worst storms to see the extreme that this planet has to offer. The outcome is uncertain of the experience being unforgettable unless ya know.

I can't imagine Drake Passage often gets tropical cyclones with much frequency.  Does anyone have any reliable data on this?

Probably not any sort of tropical system given their proximity to Antarctica, but it's pretty notorious area of the ocean.

[Plutonic Panda]

I can't remember, who said it or what thread it was in, but someone posted a thread about "square de sacs" referring to cul-de-sac, but in a square form. Another poster who I'm referring to, but can't remember who it is educated the person that started the thread and said that cul-de-sac is a French term for bottom of the bag. They then proceeded to call the term "square de sac" linguistically, absurd. I thought that was pretty funny.

[kphoger]

Considering that "cul-de-sac" is French for "bottom of bag", your term is linguistically absurd and would make some language nerds (or ordinary French speakers) wince in pain.

I propose, as an alternative, "cul-de-boîte", or "bottom of box".

FTFY

[kphoger]

a full grown man threatening to drag a naked high schooler somewhere they didn't want to be would rightly raise all kinds of alarm bells.

meh.

Here is something from the MTR archives.

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.

[Beltway]

Like to know who some of the MTR creative snippers were?

[kphoger]

Like to know who some of the MTR creative snippers were?

I believe I speak on behalf of everyone on the forum when I say, No.

[Max Rockatansky]

Like to know who some of the MTR creative snippers were?

I believe I speak on behalf of everyone on the forum when I say, No.

I heard Calrog was very impleasable.  He was very impleased about HB hosting Little Green Shrub on his YouTube channel for years.

[TheCatalyst31]

a bogus argument

Well I don't see why anyone would agree with an argument as bogus as that.

[formulanone]

I'm old enough to remember that they had medicine for tummy aches all those decades ago.

[kphoger]

I heard Calrog was very impleasable.  He was very impleased about HB hosting Little Green Shrub on his YouTube channel for years.

There's just no emplacifying some people.

[thspfc]

a full grown man threatening to drag a naked high schooler somewhere they didn't want to be would rightly raise all kinds of alarm bells.

meh.

Here is something from the MTR archives.

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.

My god chill out. I'll delete the post if people didn't find it funny. If you took it as an attack that's slightly concerning.

[kphoger]

My god chill out. I'll delete the post if people didn't find it funny. If you took it as an attack that's slightly concerning.

I'm totes chill.  I posted that in jest.

[Max Rockatansky]

My god chill out. I'll delete the post if people didn't find it funny. If you took it as an attack that's slightly concerning.

I'm totes chill.  I posted that in jest.

I find it very impleasing that thspfc didn't catch the Key Bridge Strikes Back reference.

[kphoger]

I find it very impleasing that thspfc didn't catch the Key Bridge Strikes Back reference.

What does your A.I. assistant have to say about that?  The world wonders.

[Max Rockatansky]

I find it very impleasing that thspfc didn't catch the Key Bridge Strikes Back reference.

What does your A.I. assistant have to say about that?  The world wonders.

AI is just a tool, no need for it to stand on ceremony (a capsule it ain't).

[Beltway]

I find it very impleasing that thspfc didn't catch the Key Bridge Strikes Back reference.

What does your A.I. assistant have to say about that?  The world wonders.

There is an overload of vomic being posted in this thread.

[kphoger]

There is an overload of vomic being posted in this thread.

I'd say there's been a dearth of plaxum and a shortage of strabbens lately, and it impleases me greatly.

[Beltway]

There is an overload of vomic being posted in this thread.

I'd say there's been a dearth of plaxum and a shortage of strabbens lately, and it impleases me greatly.

We want BLAD to stay down to avoid BMG, and we want to avoid anyone doing an RBC with a KB.