The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > The BBQ Pit

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 02-22-2004, 05:17 AM
Chotii Chotii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmGeek
I agree, and my post wasn't to defend nor confound Fish's post, merely to explain what I thought he/she meant.

That said, typing out 'In my humble opinion' or 'I am not a lawyer' takes a lot more effort than putting the 'e' at the end of 'be'.
Amen. I had been going to say that. You beat me to it.

Quote:
As for movie titles I'm not usually going to abbreviate say, Pulp Fiction to PF, unless I repeat the title several times in a post. But, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King is definitely going to be LOTR: ROTK.
But then again, context is everything. If you're in a movie newsgroup (for instance) and there's a thread about Lord of the Rings, then LOTR makes sense. But if in the middle of that threat, somebody throws in HPATSS, you're going to go "Whafuck?" (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone). The context is wrong.

My biggest problem with cellphone text messaging abbreviations is that I have to translate them. No, maybe not 'u' but definitely most of the others. And, yes, I would simply "choose to not read his posts" if I had a way to /gag or killfile posts from an individual poster. I do not. I merely read along down the thread and if a post stands out, I read the author's name, and...mutter, grumble, dammit, there's that idjit again. Too late. I've already found myself slogging through.

Bleah.
Advertisements  
  #152  
Old 02-22-2004, 05:26 AM
Richard Pearse Richard Pearse is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kiwi in Adelaide
Posts: 8,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist
Really? Hmmm...let's see...oh, here's one! And it's your very first post, too. To wit: "If I'm writing a nice, formal memo, u can b damn sure that I won't b using phrases such as...etc.

And here, in post #6: "Aw, shucks, 2 bad 4 me then."

Damn! You really are stupid. There's a shock!

These would all be posts in this thread yes? Do you think he might just be doing it for the sake of this thread to make a point?

I happen to not agree with him, but you're are demonstrating your own stupidity with your post.
  #153  
Old 02-22-2004, 05:33 AM
Chotii Chotii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by KJ
But seriously, I think the main problem with "u" is not the fact that it makes the text harder to read (which it does) or that people won't understand it (don't worry, they do.) The problem is the attitude it conveys...I always get the impression that the person using "u" is "lazy." Not "lazy" as in "doesn't do a lot of physical activity" but "lazy" as in "stupid teenager who sees 'laziness' as a source of pride because it seems rebellious." Give me a break. (If you've met this person, you know what I'm talking about--I'll admit, it used to be me.)
Or if they don't think laziness==rebelliousness, maybe they genuinely think it's cute, or clever, or (in the case of *some* teenagers, who are almost functionally illiterate anyway) perfectly valid variant spellings of ordinary words.

I have a 15 year old niece who is bright, intelligent and articulate. But I cannot bring myself to correspond with her via e-mail because she uses this idiotic txt-speak. Gawd. It doesn't sound at ALL like her. It's like talking to a caricature.

Thumbs down.
  #154  
Old 02-22-2004, 08:01 AM
CheekyMonkey613 CheekyMonkey613 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferrous
You may notice that the posters in the Anti column represent a pretty broad range of attitudes and interests, and include several people who disagree with each other on practically everything. On this issue, they are united.

So, Civil Defense, to the extent that the posters in this thread represent a meaningful sample of the total population of the SDMB, roughly 71% of Dopers are not worth your time to read or respond to. Kinda makes one wonder what you're doing here, ya know?
Wow Ferrous .. that must have taken a lot of time and patience. I haven't continued reading past this point (didn't want to lose my train of thought), so if it's been addressed, sorry. You missed out something very important in your calculations.

Seventy-one percent of the people who responded to this thread (which has a very descriptive title) are "Anti-U". I've noticed that when people reply to a Barbecue Pit thread, it's usually to disagree with the Original Post. I certainly don't have the patience, and I'm sure you don't have the time, but it would be interesting to see the ratio of people who respond in agreement to any post in this section.

Post Script: I noticed you counted me in the "Pro-U". I'm not really "Pro-U". I'm very neutral about it, though I'm stunned by how many people feel so strongly about it. Stuff like "WAG" and "IANAD" derails me momentarily. Count me in for the "Anti-Kewl" though, if you're still keeping a running tab.
  #155  
Old 02-22-2004, 08:14 AM
EddyTeddyFreddy EddyTeddyFreddy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Exurbia, No'thuh Bawst'n
Posts: 12,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Civil Defense
Yes. Yes, I do. Now, if you will be so kind as to ignore all future posts from me, because, clearly, I am below your acceptable level of conversational intelligence, then we can both be about our business and you can find much smaller, menial things to pick at, I'm sure.
Yes, you certainly are well below the standards of this board, or any other that attracts an educated membership. Rest assured, I have no desire to pick at the shriveled road apple inside your skull.
  #156  
Old 02-22-2004, 09:17 AM
Ruby Ruby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Civil Defense
In fact, I've never typed in the manner that I've defended in this series of posts. =D
What dog do you have in this fight, then? Do you fear that the imbiciles that type "u" and "r" are too stupid to speak up for themselves? You've put a lot of energy and time in defending a practice that even you don't do?
  #157  
Old 02-22-2004, 09:42 AM
istara istara is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
u look like a dumb fuck when u use "u"
  #158  
Old 02-22-2004, 09:42 AM
Lightnin' Lightnin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Oooh! Can I opt out, as well?

I personally loathe netspeak.

I'm a mod on another forum, one that's rather heavily populated by 13-year-old fanboys. As such, there're a lot of "u" people there. And it's well-known that if you want to ask me a question in that forum, you'd best not use any sort of netspeak contraction- otherwise, I'll a) not answer your question, and b) make you look like an illiterate idiot.

I think others have said it in this thread, and probably better than I, but I'll give it a shot (and add myself to the rapidly-growing majority of posters in this thread who've said they dislike netspeak).

Whenever I ask anyone why they use "u" for "you" and the like, the answer is inevitably "because it saves time." I call bullshit. You may have saved one millisecond or so by not typing those extra two letters... but you've caused everyone who reads your post at least that much time, since they have to take the time to translate it. And you know, there're a lot more of US than there are of YOU, so you're just putting the burden on everyone else. That's just sheer malicious laziness, that is.

Just yesterday, as a matter of fact, I was asked to be one of the judges on a multimedia fair at the local college. There was one exhibit which normally I wouldn't have hesitated to vote for- it was quite well done, and was a very interesting exhibit... but the student insisted on using netspeak in the exhibit's description. As a result, I didn't vote for him- and, apparently, neither did any of the other judges. He didn't win. Care to guess why the other judges didn't vote for him, either?

You're not typing this thing on a cellphone, are you? You've got a fully-functioning keyboard sitting on the desk in front of you? You're physically capable of typing the letters "y" and "o", correct?

Then knock it off. Or don't post. Anything else, and you're just deliberately being an asshole.
  #159  
Old 02-22-2004, 10:39 AM
Tony Montana Tony Montana is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe
FU2

ahem
  #160  
Old 02-22-2004, 11:18 AM
Civil Defense Civil Defense is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruby
What dog do you have in this fight, then? Do you fear that the imbiciles that type "u" and "r" are too stupid to speak up for themselves? You've put a lot of energy and time in defending a practice that even you don't do?
Lots of people put in time and energy doing defending things they don't do, but agree with.

I may not agree with you, but I will defend .. yadda yadda yadda.
  #161  
Old 02-22-2004, 12:14 PM
elfkin477 elfkin477 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NH
Posts: 19,269
i think u r all b'ing 2 hard on Civil Defens. So what if typing like dis makes u have 2 work 2x as hard too figure out what we r saying? U no wot it says, don u? its just a message board, not skool, so y should people take the time 2 make the effort too be ezily understood? Netspeak is more better then b4 when u had to becareful wit speling so peeps wuld no wot u are tryin two say. An its more faster dis way, rite? wots wrong wit dat? i no wot i mean, so if u don and think im dum, so what. its no like im tryin 2 comunicate u no, i just like attention. i bet every1 else dos 2! NEway, your just gelous dat ur 2 uptite to be with it, and be kool like netspeaker r. B grateful dat u can learn from netspeakers alrite?








I feel dirty
  #162  
Old 02-22-2004, 12:26 PM
Ilsa_Lund Ilsa_Lund is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by elfkin477
i think u r all b'ing 2 hard on Civil Defens. So what if typing like dis makes u have 2 work 2x as hard too figure out what we r saying? U no wot it says, don u? its just a message board, not skool, so y should people take the time 2 make the effort too be ezily understood? Netspeak is more better then b4 when u had to becareful wit speling so peeps wuld no wot u are tryin two say. An its more faster dis way, rite? wots wrong wit dat? i no wot i mean, so if u don and think im dum, so what. its no like im tryin 2 comunicate u no, i just like attention. i bet every1 else dos 2! NEway, your just gelous dat ur 2 uptite to be with it, and be kool like netspeaker r. B grateful dat u can learn from netspeakers alrite?


%05 P0n'7 |{n0w wh47 %05'r3 74#|{1n9 4b057. %05 4r3 $0 $750p1P (45$3 5 $74nP 5p 0r (1v1# P33n$3 4nP 7h47 41n7 #337
  #163  
Old 02-22-2004, 12:38 PM
Starving Artist Starving Artist is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 13,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1920s Style Death Ray
These would all be posts in this thread yes? Do you think he might just be doing it for the sake of this thread to make a point?

I happen to not agree with him, but you're are demonstrating your own stupidity with your post.
Do you even know what you're talking about, moron?

First of all, he was the one who so smugly said he hadn't actually used u-speak in any of his posts defending its use. I pointed out that this was not so. Secondly, I omitted the instances where he used it to quote others or as an example of its usage. The quotes I posted were his actual comments to other posters, before he decided it would be cute to continue to annoy people without actually using the annoying phrasology.

Don't be so quick to point out the stupidity you perceive, the liklihood is it's your own!
  #164  
Old 02-22-2004, 12:40 PM
Civil Defense Civil Defense is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist
Do you even know what you're talking about, moron?

First of all, he was the one who so smugly said he hadn't actually used u-speak in any of his posts defending its use. I pointed out that this was not so. Secondly, I omitted the instances where he used it to quote others or as an example of its usage. The quotes I posted were his actual comments to other posters, before he decided it would be cute to continue to annoy people without actually using the annoying phrasology.

Don't be so quick to point out the stupidity you perceive, the liklihood is it's your own!
My implication, which you apparently missed, was that I DON'T use "u-speak" in my typical posting behavior. He caught on. You did not. When I've used it in this thread, it's obviously been used to jab at the nerves of those who get so riled up over such a simple thing. :wally
  #165  
Old 02-22-2004, 01:29 PM
Ferrous Ferrous is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by CheekyMonkey613
You missed out something very important in your calculations.

Seventy-one percent of the people who responded to this thread (which has a very descriptive title) are "Anti-U".
No, I didn't miss that. I specifically said "to the extent that the posters in this thread represent a meaningful sample..." Certainly there is a question as to what that extent is, but I'm not sure that can be answered. Not in the amount of time I'm willing to devote anyway.
Quote:
I've noticed that when people reply to a Barbecue Pit thread, it's usually to disagree with the Original Post.
I'm not sure that's true. I've seen plenty of people respond in agreement with OPs in other threads. There is a certain reluctance on the part of many posters (and rightly so) to make "me too" posts. But it seems to me that it applies to the "anti" crowd as well.
Quote:
I certainly don't have the patience, and I'm sure you don't have the time, but it would be interesting to see the ratio of people who respond in agreement to any post in this section.
What, the whole BBQ Pit? Yeah, that would be rather interesting, but I'm sure not going to be the one to attempt it. (I'm not as obsessive as my earlier post may imply. )
Quote:
Post Script: I noticed you counted me in the "Pro-U". I'm not really "Pro-U". I'm very neutral about it, though I'm stunned by how many people feel so strongly about it. Stuff like "WAG" and "IANAD" derails me momentarily. Count me in for the "Anti-Kewl" though, if you're still keeping a running tab.
Duly noted. Actually, I have been keeping track of people who posted after I made my little list. I hadn't intended to do the whole coding bit again, but if anyone wants to know: 13 more posters have chimed in to join the "Anti-U" camp, and one "Unknown" has clarified himself as beng in that camp, bringing the total to 56 out of 73 total posters. So now we have (with the standard caveat about samples) 77% of Dopers who are candidates for CD's Ignore List.

Note that your own movement from "Pro" to "Neutral" doesn't change the ratio, since it only counts "Anti" vs. everyone else. The whole point was to demonstrate the magnitude of CD's decision to discount anyone who doesn't like the use of netspeak.
  #166  
Old 02-22-2004, 01:37 PM
Starving Artist Starving Artist is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 13,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Civil Defense
My implication, which you apparently missed, was that I DON'T use "u-speak" in my typical posting behavior. He caught on. You did not. When I've used it in this thread, it's obviously been used to jab at the nerves of those who get so riled up over such a simple thing. :wally
Excuse me, but did you not say you "never typed" in the manner you were defending in this series of posts? Yes, you did! It was not an implication, it was a flat-out declaration, which I debunked.

And for the record, everyone isn't so riled up over the simple usage of u-speak. They don't particularly like, nor do they think very highly of, those who use it, but what everyone is really riled up about is your willing lack of consideration for others and the eagerness with which you continue to deliberately antagonize people. And you perfectly well know it.
  #167  
Old 02-22-2004, 02:07 PM
Civil Defense Civil Defense is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist
Excuse me, but did you not say you "never typed" in the manner you were defending in this series of posts? Yes, you did! It was not an implication, it was a flat-out declaration, which I debunked.

And for the record, everyone isn't so riled up over the simple usage of u-speak. They don't particularly like, nor do they think very highly of, those who use it, but what everyone is really riled up about is your willing lack of consideration for others and the eagerness with which you continue to deliberately antagonize people. And you perfectly well know it.
  #168  
Old 02-22-2004, 02:11 PM
OpalCat OpalCat is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 19,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chotii
And, yes, I would simply "choose to not read his posts" if I had a way to /gag or killfile posts from an individual poster. I do not.
Um... yes you do. You can put them on your ignore list. Just go to their profile and click the link that says "Add so and so to your ignore list"...easy as pie.
  #169  
Old 02-22-2004, 02:11 PM
Ferrous Ferrous is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Civil Defense
On the subject of Things That Make You Look Like A Moron: quoting an entire post, especially when it's the one immediately preceding yours, and then respondng with only a rolleyes smile, is even more irritating than the "u" thing.
  #170  
Old 02-22-2004, 02:12 PM
Civil Defense Civil Defense is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferrous
On the subject of Things That Make You Look Like A Moron: quoting an entire post, especially when it's the one immediately preceding yours, and then respondng with only a rolleyes smile, is even more irritating than the "u" thing.
I am very well aware of that. Perhaps my intent was, indeed, to actively irritate you?
  #171  
Old 02-22-2004, 02:14 PM
Qadgop the Mercotan Qadgop the Mercotan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Slithering on the hull
Posts: 22,039
[QUOTE=Ferrous]Neutral: Qadgop the Mercotan[QUOTE]
You can put me in the anti category. Disrupts my reading comprehension. And unless the post speaks to something I am very interested in, I ignore it.

Thanks for thinking of me!
  #172  
Old 02-22-2004, 02:16 PM
Ferrous Ferrous is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Civil Defense
I am very well aware of that. Perhaps my intent was, indeed, to actively irritate you?
So you enjoy being an asshole then, in addition to being a defender of illiterate morons? How charming.
  #173  
Old 02-22-2004, 02:19 PM
Civil Defense Civil Defense is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferrous
So you enjoy being an asshole then, in addition to being a defender of illiterate morons? How charming.
I actually do think it's amusing to watch those who are extraordinarily anal get all worked up. So, I suppose I am an asshole.
  #174  
Old 02-22-2004, 02:26 PM
Ferrous Ferrous is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Civil Defense
I actually do think it's amusing to watch those who are extraordinarily anal get all worked up. So, I suppose I am an asshole.
Actually, it was a rhetorical question. I wasn't really in doubt as to your assholishness.

As to being "extraordinarily anal", given that a very large and growing majority of posters are of the same opinion, I'd say that I'm only the ordinary amount of anal.
  #175  
Old 02-22-2004, 02:27 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: 847 mi. from Cecil
Posts: 28,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Civil Defense
I am very well aware of that. Perhaps my intent was, indeed, to actively irritate you?
Then that would put you in violation of the Straight Dope Message Board Registration Agreement, re: the basic rule. Keep your head down, the mods hate that kind of stuff.
  #176  
Old 02-22-2004, 02:33 PM
Civil Defense Civil Defense is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself
Then that would put you in violation of the Straight Dope Message Board Registration Agreement, re: the basic rule. Keep your head down, the mods hate that kind of stuff.
I don't see how I'm being any more of a jerk than, say, someone who wants to continually attack me for defending myself.

But whatever, I thought we'd all reached a resolution. You've got an ignore list. As do I. Carry on.
  #177  
Old 02-22-2004, 02:40 PM
Starving Artist Starving Artist is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 13,412
Indeed, you have now unquestionably crossed over into Trollism, and by your own admission, at that! I'd proceed with caution if I were you (though fortunately, I'm not). You can get banned for that and you've antagonized a lot of people for no good reason I can see other than simply to be obnoxious.
  #178  
Old 02-22-2004, 02:44 PM
Civil Defense Civil Defense is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist
Indeed, you have now unquestionably crossed over into Trollism, and by your own admission, at that! I'd proceed with caution if I were you (though fortunately, I'm not). You can get banned for that and you've antagonized a lot of people for no good reason I can see other than simply to be obnoxious.
Trollism.. ha. Feel free to believe what you want, but in any case, this is the BBQ pit -- I voiced my opinion, heard the opinions of others, and summarily rejected and ridiculed them. You do not have to agree with me.

I've antagonized no one- they antagonized themselves by letting small things get to them.

Continue to attack as you wish, but I'm done here -- as I'm sure a lot of other people are. Let it go.
  #179  
Old 02-22-2004, 03:35 PM
Ilsa_Lund Ilsa_Lund is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
[QUOTE=Civil Defense]I voiced my opinion, heard the opinions of others, and summarily rejected and ridiculed them. You do not have to agree with me.
[QUOTE]

Uh, a little backwards here. You voiced your opinion, others heard it and summarily rejected it and ridiculed you. :wally
  #180  
Old 02-22-2004, 03:48 PM
EddyTeddyFreddy EddyTeddyFreddy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Exurbia, No'thuh Bawst'n
Posts: 12,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist
Indeed, you have now unquestionably crossed over into Trollism, and by your own admission, at that! I'd proceed with caution if I were you (though fortunately, I'm not). You can get banned for that and you've antagonized a lot of people for no good reason I can see other than simply to be obnoxious.
Ah, well. Whether Civil Defense has indeed crossed that line is now in the deftly capable hands of our Esteemed Admin, since I've brought post number 170 to her dread attention. The last time I reported a Bad Post, the individual involved got the boot shortly thereafter. Whether my radar is still properly calibrated, and CD is indeed an under-bridge dweller, or merely an infantile twit, we shall see.

Hey, Starving Artist -- Nice to run into you again! I see you're settling in nicely, even generating "good post" backpats in some threads I've read. Well done!
__________________
Dude, your statistical average, which was already in the toilet, just took a plunge into the Earth's mantle. ~ iampunha
Well, maybe you shouldn't use the political equivalent of the Weekly World News as a factual source. Just sayin'. ~ RTFirefly
Brought to you as a public service by EddyTeddyFreddy Industries, Inc., purveyors of wit, wisdom, badinage, and run-on sentences since 1949.
  #181  
Old 02-22-2004, 04:07 PM
Ferrous Ferrous is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyTeddyFreddy
Ah, well. Whether Civil Defense has indeed crossed that line is now in the deftly capable hands of our Esteemed Admin, since I've brought post number 170 to her dread attention. The last time I reported a Bad Post, the individual involved got the boot shortly thereafter. Whether my radar is still properly calibrated, and CD is indeed an under-bridge dweller, or merely an infantile twit, we shall see.[/SIZE]
Hmm. Well, IANAMod of course, but since the post in question was addressed to me, allow me to venture an opinion: I don't think CD was trolling. Not really. It can be very hard to back down when everyone seems to be attacking you. It's easy to say some regrettable things that you didn't really mean when your back is to the wall. I rather suspect CD may be regretting the decision to ride this particular ship to the bottom, but some people are stubborn like that. Even---and you may find this hard to credit---even me, sometimes.

Anyway, I don't think that was a bannable offense.
  #182  
Old 02-22-2004, 04:30 PM
EddyTeddyFreddy EddyTeddyFreddy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Exurbia, No'thuh Bawst'n
Posts: 12,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferrous
Hmm. Well, IANAMod of course, but since the post in question was addressed to me, allow me to venture an opinion: I don't think CD was trolling. Not really.
IANAMod either, which is why, rather than explicitly passing judgment in the thread, I reported the post. If Lynn (or whoever's on patrol duty today) agrees, there's always a range of options short of banning. If she thinks I jumped the gun, she I'm sure will let me know I should be more cautious. She may also tell me to keep my mouth shut about having reported a post, the next time I feel the need to do it. I bow to her authority, in any case.

My own feeling is that CD's behavior doesn't necessarily sink to the level of banning (although he's not doing himself any favors), but he might need a refresher course on the SDMB Prime Directive. That's a mod/admin's job, not mine.

I do, however, feel free to state my opinion that he's a gormless oaf.
__________________
Dude, your statistical average, which was already in the toilet, just took a plunge into the Earth's mantle. ~ iampunha
Well, maybe you shouldn't use the political equivalent of the Weekly World News as a factual source. Just sayin'. ~ RTFirefly
Brought to you as a public service by EddyTeddyFreddy Industries, Inc., purveyors of wit, wisdom, badinage, and run-on sentences since 1949.
  #183  
Old 02-22-2004, 04:49 PM
CheekyMonkey613 CheekyMonkey613 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferrous
I don't think CD was trolling. Not really. It can be very hard to back down when everyone seems to be attacking you. Anyway, I don't think that was a bannable offense.
I agree with you emphatically. I think it's ironic that this whole thread has been about how the posters here are educated and intelligent, yet some don't have the perception to see why CD said what he said. It's unfortunate that the "!" button has been used for this. Can't be easy being a mod/admin when people use the panic button so liberally.
  #184  
Old 02-22-2004, 05:08 PM
EddyTeddyFreddy EddyTeddyFreddy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Exurbia, No'thuh Bawst'n
Posts: 12,371
In CD's own words:
Quote:
I am very well aware of that. Perhaps my intent was, indeed, to actively irritate you?
Quote:
I actually do think it's amusing to watch those who are extraordinarily anal get all worked up. So, I suppose I am an asshole.
Walking a very fine line if not over it. As I said, banning is likely not called for, but a reminder of certain behavioral standards here IMO is.

As I pointed out, if Lynn thinks I've erred, I have no doubt she'll let me know exactly how she feels about it. I'll take her advice and admonishment over any mere member's. It's my impression, from what mods/admins have said in the past, that they'd prefer to have Dopers use the report post button rather than lynching perceived malefactors in a thread.
  #185  
Old 02-22-2004, 05:14 PM
Ilsa_Lund Ilsa_Lund is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyTeddyFreddy
In CD's own words:
Walking a very fine line if not over it. As I said, banning is likely not called for, but a reminder of certain behavioral standards here IMO is.

As I pointed out, if Lynn thinks I've erred, I have no doubt she'll let me know exactly how she feels about it. I'll take her advice and admonishment over any mere member's. It's my impression, from what mods/admins have said in the past, that they'd prefer to have Dopers use the report post button rather than lynching perceived malefactors in a thread.
I thought they diabled the "Lynch Poster" button!
  #186  
Old 02-22-2004, 05:27 PM
EddyTeddyFreddy EddyTeddyFreddy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Exurbia, No'thuh Bawst'n
Posts: 12,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilsa_Lund
I thought they diabled the "Lynch Poster" button!
Yeh, they had to disable it when they couldn't bugfix its habit of auto-banning every Doper who used more than one smiley per post.
  #187  
Old 02-22-2004, 05:28 PM
Richard Pearse Richard Pearse is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kiwi in Adelaide
Posts: 8,005
Oh dear. This is an internet message board and so any "conversation" in a public forum is open for someone else to join in. however, if you do feel the need to join in, then please make sure you understand what the other participants are talking about.

By "conversation" in this instance I mean the small part of this thread where I noted that the OP had mentioned that he doesn't normally post in contractions anyway, and he/she replied that, actually, they never use it. Now, I think that anyone with some basic reading comprehension skills and common sense could tell that neither of us were talking about this particular thread.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist
Do you even know what you're talking about, moron?

First of all, he was the one who so smugly said he hadn't actually used u-speak in any of his posts defending its use.
No, he didn't. He didn't mention (and neither did I) his posts defending u-speak. He said:

Quote:
In fact, I've never typed in the manner that I've defended in this series of posts. =D
He definitely did not say "In fact, I've never typed in that manner while defending this posting style. =D"

Quote:
I pointed out that this was not so. Secondly, I omitted the instances where he used it to quote others or as an example of its usage. The quotes I posted were his actual comments to other posters, before he decided it would be cute to continue to annoy people without actually using the annoying phrasology.
You're right, I concede defeat, it was exceptionally clever of you to notice and point out that he'd used u-speak in this very thread.

In case you missed it, and it wasn't even a point, just an interesting observation, I thought it unlikely for anyone to ignore his posts due to the use of "u" for "you", because he doesn't actually post like that anyway (in normal posting).

Perhaps this will make it clearer 4 u.

Despite the above sentence, I have absolutely no problem stating that I never post using silly contractions such as u, b, and 4.

Quote:
Don't be so quick to point out the stupidity you perceive, the liklihood is it's your own!
I'm sure there are many people who can make me look, sound, or feel stupid.

You are not one of them.
  #188  
Old 02-22-2004, 05:28 PM
Snooooopy Snooooopy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Jacksonville, N.C.
Posts: 9,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyTeddyFreddy
My own feeling is that CD's behavior doesn't necessarily sink to the level of banning (although he's not doing himself any favors), but he might need a refresher course on the SDMB Prime Directive.
Since when did anyone on the Enterprise knock themselves out following the Prime Directive?
  #189  
Old 02-22-2004, 05:33 PM
Fish Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Well, there was that one time that Riker was sedated on that one planet where he was impersonating that alien guy and there was this nurse or something but it was definitely a woman or a female of that alien species or whatever and Riker says you gotta help me get outta this hospital, and the nurse person says okay, except the secret police are...

Oh.

Does sedation even count?
  #190  
Old 02-22-2004, 05:43 PM
Snooooopy Snooooopy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Jacksonville, N.C.
Posts: 9,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish
Well, there was that one time that Riker was sedated on that one planet where he was impersonating that alien guy and there was this nurse or something but it was definitely a woman or a female of that alien species or whatever and Riker says you gotta help me get outta this hospital, and the nurse person says okay, except the secret police are...

Oh.

Does sedation even count?
RIKER doesn't count! What an irritating boob. I always prayed for him to get a real ass-beating on every episode.
  #191  
Old 02-22-2004, 05:47 PM
EddyTeddyFreddy EddyTeddyFreddy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Exurbia, No'thuh Bawst'n
Posts: 12,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snooooopy
RIKER doesn't count! What an irritating boob.
Worse than Janet Jackson's?
  #192  
Old 02-22-2004, 05:47 PM
Starving Artist Starving Artist is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 13,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1920s Style Death Ray

I'm sure there are many people who can make me look, sound, or feel stupid.

You are not one of them.
Oh, I don't know about that, however you're doing fine on your own. Your splitting hairs over whether or not he meant this thread when he said he never typed that way, and what difference it makes given that he said he never did it when in fact he had (never is an absolute; either you've never done something or you have), makes you look foolish enough for me.
  #193  
Old 02-22-2004, 05:53 PM
Lynn Bodoni Lynn Bodoni is offline
Creature of the Night
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 20,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Civil Defense
I am very well aware of that. Perhaps my intent was, indeed, to actively irritate you?
Well, that would be trolling. And that would be against the rules.

Lynn
For the Straight Dope
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.