Conflicts and hot topics you never knew existed

I didn’t know there was a big debate over the use of the word Anasazi to describe the ancestors of the Pueblo Indians. Some of them assert that Anasazi means “enemy people” in Navajo though some Navajo dispute the meaning of the word. What I first heard about the convroversy all I could think of was, “what”?

Marc

The whole public cell phone thing. If a group of people are assembled for a single purpose, I can’t believe there are people who think it’s okay to have your cell phone ring and proceed to carry on a ten minute conversation about nothing.

Heh. My neighboors bought an H3. Got a great deal on it. They needed a mid to large size 4x4 with decent ground clearence (the CJ was too small). They are great people.

This blew me away too.

I haven’t seen mention of jury nullification. Maybe that’s a good thing. :wink:

He preferred the wildly patterned/multiple shades of blue variety most of the time; the pattern was so distracting/disorienting that it’d be difficult to really gauge depth and size of things underneath there. Besides, who cares? It isn’t like he’s wearing the “elephant trunk” underwear that they sell in novelty stores. :wink: :stuck_out_tongue:

Enipla, Zsofia: that really shocked me as well, and continues to shock me when it’s applied to other areas where enabling the bad behavior via the implausible medical excuse route is the automatic reaction. Do they seriously think all these people are walking around doing things that are socially inappropriate because of an untreated medical condition?

I guess I will be repeating many of the already mentioned “hot topics” which I find strange:

  • the cat thing; where I live cats come and go as they please

  • shoes; are for wearing outdoors, unless its summertime and one can run around barefooted

  • driving stick; there actually exist people who have never driven a car with manual transmission?

  • cicumscision; people actually let someone slash away at their penis? Unheard of, barbaric etc

The sad part about it is that it actually makes the game far more boring, because it increases the money supply and makes the game take freakin’ forever. Everyone who has stories about playing week-long Monopoly games has them because of some retarded “lets give everyone extra money” rule. If you play by the rules as written, the game is over in two or three hours.

My take on the shoes on/off thing is that if I enter the home and see shoes near the door, or my hosts not wearing shoes, I will ask if they’d like me to remove my shoes. The visual hint of shoes near the door and barefoot hosts should be enough, right?

What if it’s a nice dinner party? Are ladies supposed to take off their high heels in order to walk around barefoot? Shoes are part of the outfit for a lot of people. I’d be extremely uncomfortable if I was expected to take my shoes off. And that would be the first and last time I’d visit that person’s home.

It is a silly debate, but I always feel the need to put my .02 in. I feel very strongly about keeping my shoes on.

Here you go - here’s the latest in the series of debates on shoes on or off in the house.

been reading a lot of car/motorcycle forums lately…

motorcycle stuff:

  • shifting with clutch or without
  • anything to do with oil (changing it, what kind, when, etc)
  • cruisers vs sport bikes vs touring vs etc

car stuff:

  • “rat rods” vs traditional vs “street rods” (or as most people call all of them “hot rods”)
  • clutch in at a stop, or put car in neutral (seen that one popup here)

the linux/open source world is fuill of obscure and never ending conflicts about trivial things, but I’m well versed in them at this point ;-> But some of the big ones:

  • vi vs emacs
  • kde vs gnome
  • linux distro A vs linux distro B
  • focus follows mouse vs click to focus
  • any programming language vs any other programming language

Other stuff that boggles my mind

  • cell phone carriers (I have no idea why people care so much…)
  • the “proper” way to pour a guniness

No kidding. I liked how we were instructed to always give the late person the benefit of a doubt 'cause they might suffer a “mental illness”… then, in the same thread, have it suggested that people who were prompt were suffering from a form of mental illness. :rolleyes:

Another one I just remembered that seems to generate intense debate: Wedding invitation ettiquette.
If the wedding invitation is addressed to just you and your spouse, meaning *just your name and your spouse’s names are on the invitation, * who is actually invited, just you and your spouse, or is it assumed that your kids are also invited by default?

I was amazed at how many people thought it was okay to bring kids along when they hadn’t actually been invited.

In other words, we’ve established here that a whole lot of people were raised by wolves and don’t even know it. And they get all defensive about their cave etiquette. “Well, if I didn’t know it, it’s dumb!”