[QUOTE=Excalibre]
Usually users respond with some irritating reference to spitting liquids on their keyboards. That line was funny once. For twenty minutes. In 1960. After that it became incredibly lame.
[/QUOTE]
Batman still thinks it’s funny.
[QUOTE=Colibri]
I also have little compunction against posting repeatedly if I happen to remember some significant point I left out of a previous post. If we had an edit function, I’d be happy to use that, but we don’t.
[/QUOTE]
I shudder to think what GD and the Pit would be like if we did have an edit function. That’s another unwritten rule: once you’ve posted, it’s on you to back it up, clarify it, live it down or live with it. No backsies.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Actually several of his points were very good, which one did you mean was dead-on? He made a half dozen, I think, without going back to check. I also actually meant that he does often make testy posts in almost any thread. Would you like me to cite any of the ones I saw in the last few days that were not dead-on?
Here is one from a few hours ago in the Long hair thread.
Or at the very end of the Loach pitting.
But, I don’t think examples are really needed and I doubt **Excalibre ** would strongly disagree with my post. I also doubt he has need of a defender, he is more than capable of going toe-to-toe with any poster on the board in an argument.
Jim
[/QUOTE]
Frankly, if you don’t think both of those points were dead on, that reflects some sort of deficiency on your part. Perhaps some self-examination is in order.
[QUOTE=JThunder]
Batman still thinks it’s funny.
[/QUOTE]
I wasn’t prepared for that. :dubious:
[QUOTE=Excalibre]
Frankly, if you don’t think both of those points were dead on, that reflects some sort of deficiency on your part. Perhaps some self-examination is in order.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I am always open to critism, but **DianeG ** did not appear to be getting “Pissy”. Your word.
In the **Loach ** thread, your very short, very insulting post seemed to lack, I do not know, perhaps depth and meaning.
I am curious, do you feel you do not make many testy posts, or do you just object to my very quickly found recent examples?
As you know, I respect you as a poster, but I also know you can be pretty nasty at the drop of the hat. I think you have at least occasionally mentioned or agreed with the fact you do not suffer fools gladly. That is at least partly the reason for why I said “Excalibre can find a way to post a testy post in almost any thread and enjoys doing it.” 
I readily acknowledge that your posts in this thread are probably dead-on. I do not agree my examples are.
Jim
[QUOTE=twickster]
Staying On Topic, though officially encouraged, is rarely the actual point of the thread by the time we get to the second page.
[/QUOTE]
So, how does that relate to whether Usenet is part of the internet?
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Well, I am always open to critism, but **DianeG ** did not appear to be getting “Pissy”. Your word.
[/quote]
Maybe it wasn’t “pissy”. It was threadshitting, though. I tend to have a limited tolerance of that. What’s the value of going into a thread to tell the people posting there that you don’t think they should be thinking so hard about the subject of the thread?
How much needed to be said? The poster pretty clearly said that he didn’t think police officers should have to obtain probable cause to search a vehicle. Eleusis was being unreasonable in placing absurdly strict standards as to what constitutes a valid search (for whatever comprehensible point could be gleaned from his posts.) But in his response, want2know asked this as though there is room for reasonable disagreement: “are you going to demand that he be released because the officer didn’t have PC to search the vehicle?” Now, while the victim of a crime might be excused for not caring much about the Constitutional rights of the criminal who robbed him, it’s pretty troubling to see someone suggesting we get rid of the only significant legal barrier we have in place against improper search by the police. Which is not to say that a reasonable legal argument couldn’t be made to that effect, but there wasn’t one present and it’s pretty clear want2know wasn’t making an argument for a change to our Constitutional law. He was just suggesting that it’s reasonable not to expect cops to have probable cause when conducting a search. And while Eleusis’s condemnation of the police was absurd, this sort of servile surrender of our basic Constitutional liberties is infinitely more disturbing to me.
But perhaps you disagree.
Oh, I’m testy sometimes. And sometimes I’m wrong. But frankly, I’m usually right. If I’m not quite friendly and conciliatory enough to someone suggesting that we overturn Constitutionally-based evidence rules or to someone who shits all over a thread and essentially tells the posters not to discuss the subject in question, well, I’m not about to cry myself to sleep.
I didn’t respond to your initial post because I didn’t have any particular argument with it. I wouldn’t claim my posts in this thread about horrible, horrible jokes weren’t a bit testy. But since you’ve decided to challenge those other two posts, both of which still strike me as eminently reasonable, then I’m afraid we do have a disagreement.
Indeed.
Meh. That’s open to debate. While I might not find it funny to see the same joke repeated for the seven thousandth time, perhaps others do. Some people also enjoy Rob Schneider’s movies.
But here, you’re simply wrong.
Another unwritten rule is that thread participants all make at least a token effort to stay on topic.
Huh? What board have you been hanging out at? 
[QUOTE=Excalibre]
Maybe it wasn’t “pissy”. It was threadshitting, though. I tend to have a limited tolerance of that. What’s the value of going into a thread to tell the people posting there that you don’t think they should be thinking so hard about the subject of the thread?..snip…
[/QUOTE]
I can actually agree with that, but as I did not feel she was being ‘Pissy’, I thought that was a good example of where you were both ‘testy’ and not ‘dead-on’. Mostly right, sure. Dead-on has a different meaning, and that was the phrase that **Aesiron ** chose to use.
The **Loach ** thread, I think I might be wrong about, but from your brief retort in the thread, I did not understand the specific reason for your apparent disdain of the poster. Perhaps you will excuse me on this one.
Another SDMB unwritten rule: No thread is immune from several side-issues debates. Allow **Excalibre ** and myself and others in this thread provide ample proof of this.
Jim
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
The **Loach ** thread, I think I might be wrong about, but from your brief retort in the thread, I did not understand the specific reason for your apparent disdain of the poster. Perhaps you will excuse me on this one.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, no harm done. I have a tendency to overestimate my audience, and that’s something I need to keep in mind.
[QUOTE=Excalibre]
Oh, no harm done. I have a tendency to overestimate my audience, and that’s something I need to keep in mind.
[/QUOTE]
Nice, you manage to accept a slight apology and yet slightly insult me. You truly are a master.
Jim {To others, believe it or not, I mean that, no sarcasm, that was really a well done short post that managed to achieve two results in perfect harmony.}
[QUOTE=Crafter_Man]
Unwritten SDMB rule #129: You are not allowed to criticize or make fun of Guinastasia. She is a member of the SDMB’s Protected Class™. Any criticism of Guin, whether warranted or not, will be met with immediate scorn and hatred toward the offending party.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know what particular beef you have with Guinastasia (or anyone else for that matter), but taking shots at another poster in MPSIMS is right out. If you want to vent, do so in the Pit.
For anyone else: since the purpose of this thread is to discuss habits and other things related to the SDMB, calling other posters “morons” or otherwise insulting them isn’t going to fly. If their posting habits bother you that much, take it to the Pit; this isn’t the forum for it.
In addition, let’s keep this thread on track. It does not need to devolve into discussions of specific users. If such hijacks continue to happen, we’ll close this thread down.
Any thread of 75 or more posts must contain at least one reference to a Monty Python sketch. Or it will be closed for being too silly.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Nice, you manage to accept a slight apology and yet slightly insult me. You truly are a master.[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for noticing! I was particularly proud of that post.
[QUOTE=Excalibre]
Thanks for noticing! I was particularly proud of that post.
[/QUOTE]
Good, then you’ll be proud of your warning, too. Leave the insults, no matter how clever you think they are, in the Pit.
[QUOTE=SkipMagic]
Good, then you’ll be proud of your warning, too. Leave the insults, no matter how clever you think they are, in the Pit.
[/QUOTE]
It wasn’t a personal insult. I didn’t direct an insult against any particular poster. There’s no rule against saying things like that outside the pit.
[QUOTE=SkipMagic]
Good, then you’ll be proud of your warning, too. Leave the insults, no matter how clever you think they are, in the Pit.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, come on, I was the recipient of the ‘insult’ and I took as a good natured joke.
That does not seem fair. Why not save the warning for something vaguely serious.
I also apologize for the derailing, I think it is mostly my fault.
Jim
[QUOTE=Colibri]
Why does that bother you? I’ll admit to doing three in a row occasionally, sometimes more, just because it’s so much easier to quote each post individually and respond to it, rather than having to go back up the thread and select, copy, and paste. This is especially true when there is a long thread involved. If I have time, and can be bothered, I’ll consolidate my responses, but I don’t feel obligated to. After all, my main objective is usually to exchange information, not to make my posts look pretty.
I also have little compunction against posting repeatedly if I happen to remember some significant point I left out of a previous post. If we had an edit function, I’d be happy to use that, but we don’t.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know. Inherited desire for ultimate efficiency, I guess. I don’t mind two posts in a row, when you honestly forgot to include something in your first post. More than that, though, seems like a combination of thread-hogging and post-padding, especially when done by a new member.
If post counts were eliminated, both the real attempts at such behavior (lame) and the false accusations of wrongly perceived intent to do so (even lamer) would drop sharply.
Maybe.
(This post has been lamed by the Lame-ist.)