# Yet Another Pet Peeves thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 25, 2005, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-pet-peeves-thread/300996 "2005-04-25T08:48:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-pet-peeves-thread/300996/21 "2005-05-24T07:19:57Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > According to Fullbright scholar, Anthropology Professor Judy Ledgerwood, studying the re-emergence of Buddhism in Cambodia, “From 1975 to 1979, the communist movement known as Khmer Rouge, headed by guerilla commander Pol Pot, ruled the nation and brutalized its people. The Khmer Rouge was responsible for the deaths of nearly 1.7 million Cambodians, or more than one-fifth of the country’s population. Pol Pot set out to destroy Buddhism, the nation’s predominant religion.” (February 10, 2003) Actually, that’s not at all what I was talking about. There has defniitely been the “ooh, atheists have killed more people than religious people” debate, which is relatively meaningless, as I see it. I’m talking about the general behavior, attitudes, and political beliefs of generic non-serial-killer Americans. Compare the people who want to ban gay marriage (because of their religion) or keep the 10 commandments in the classroom (because of their religion) or not allow the teaching of evolution (beacuse of their marriage), or the recent big political/religious rally called “Sunday for Faith” or whatever the hell it was called, with ANY actions taken by atheists and motivated by their atheism. And remember, removing “Under God” from the pledge does not make it an atheist pledge, it just makes it a pledge which does not violate beliefs of either Christians or atheists. What atheists would actually add the words “under no God, because there is no God” to the pledge, if they could? (I bring this up as an example of the kind of asymmetric situation that abounds. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-pet-peeves-thread/300996/22 "2005-05-24T08:52:45Z")
> [@Max](#): > > Actually, that’s not at all what I was talking about. No, it wouldn’t be, would it. > [@](#): > > There has defniitely been the “ooh, atheists have killed more people than religious people” debate, which is relatively meaningless, as I see it. Of course you do. > [@](#): > > I’m talking about the general behavior, attitudes, and political beliefs of generic non-serial-killer Americans. That was on my list of guesses, right after squash casserole. > [@](#): > > Compare the people who want to ban gay marriage (because of their religion) or keep the 10 commandments in the classroom (because of their religion) or not allow the teaching of evolution (beacuse of their marriage), or the recent big political/religious rally called “Sunday for Faith” or whatever the hell it was called, with ANY actions taken by atheists and motivated by their atheism. Well, let’s see. I could mention Stalin’s Gulags designed for “eliminating the male homosexual subculture from Russia’s capital” (Daniel D. Healey, lecturer in Russian History in the Department of History, University of Wales, Swansea). It wasn’t because of Stalin’s religion. I could mention Mao’s ubiquitous Little Red Book, not to mention his ever-present portrait from whole sides of buildings to tabletop mats. It wasn’t because of Mao’s religion. I could mention the revisionism and teaching of false history instituted by every atheist despot who seized power from his predecessor. Not to mention staged mass rallies. And it wasn’t because of their religion. I could also mention the religious people who advocate gay marriage specifically because of their religion, or those who advocate the separation of church and state specifically because of their religion. But you already know some of them. They post here. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-pet-peeves-thread/300996/23 "2005-05-24T14:12:20Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Here are some of my pet peeves, some SDMB-related, some general, some major, some minor > > **SDMB-related pet peeves** > > (1) I **hate hate hate hate hate** it when I post something, usually something long winded and a bit pompous with little lists in it, as is my wont, and I get basically no response. C’mon, you wrote several paragraphs, I spent several paragraphs specifically responding to your paragraphs and making what seemed to me to be interesting points, and raised some interesting questions… throw me a bone here! > > (2) I hate the frequently used comment that pops up in political threads all the time (on both sides) of the form “…and these same people are usually the same ones who believe/say X”. For instance “…and these same conservatives who are so concerned about the life of the unborn are in favor the death penalty”. Now there might, MIGHT, be a place for such a comment in a general discussion of the conservative movement as a whole… I guess it might be worth reflecting on the fact that the party that supports the “culture of life” also supports the death penalty. What does that imply? But bringing it up in a thread specifically about abortion is pointless and idiotic. First of all, unless you specifically know that the specific person you’re arguing with is also pro-death penalty then you’re just making groundless assumptions. After all, Catholics tend to be anti-abortion and anti-death penalty. Secondly, so what if someone is anti-abortion and pro-death-penalty? Is that an inherently self-contradictory position? Not that I hold this position, but I see nothing hypocritical about believing that (a) a fetus is a human life, and (b) innocent human life should be protected extremely highly, and (c) once someoen commits a serious crime, we don’t extend that protection to them any more > > (3) I’m sick of people saying “oh, and there are some hard-line atheists who are just as bad as the hard-line religious folks.” That’s utter and total bullshit, cut from the same cloth as all the complaints about how “anti-Christian” the US is. Sure, some atheists can be condescending and obnoxious. But if the only bad things that ultra-religious folks did was be condescending and obnoxious, the world would be a pretty fucking much better place than it is. > > (4) I’m also sick of people who mention that they’ve never watched reality television, as if (a) that makes them special, and (b) the entire genre is automatically and permanently stupid. Look, I personally don’t watch any reality TV, but I’ve seen a few episodes of a few shows from time to time, and I see nothing wrong with the theoretical possibilities of the genre. After all, aren’t sporting events and game shows reality TV? And as for things like Survivor, isn’t that something which, at its best, would be INCREDIBLY fascinating? Competition is fun to watch, and people reacting in stressful and unusual situations are fun to watch. Why the hate? > **Non-SDMB-related pet peeves** > > (1) I hate it when a movie poster consists of nothing but a big picture of the face of the star. I remember this being done with Hugh Grant for (I think) **The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill and Came Down a Mountain** and with Ben Affleck and maybe Gwyneth Paltrow (two separate posters) for **Bounce**. The message is “you are such conditioned sheep that all you need to know is who stars in this movie and you will flock to it”. Sure, that maybe true, but please, be subtle about it. (Although I think someone clever should make a **Being John Malkovich** -esque movie called **You should see this movie. Julia Roberts is in it** ). > > (2) I hate having a losing session at poker. I particularly hate when someone caps pre-flop with 25 offsuit against my AQ suited and someone else’s pocket kings, then rivers their inside straight. > > (3) I like it when women on [match.com](http://match.com) respond positively when I send them email. But I like it a lot less when that response is a “wink”. Where does that leave me? Should I email again? Clearly, she’s interested. But what’s the next step? > > (4) I hate it when I like something which is popular, and then a sequel or follow up or similar item is produced, and apparently the things that I liked about it were not what everyone else liked about it, as they are absent (and not just because the people making it tried and failed, but because they clearly consciously chose not to go in that direction). In particular, every time there’s a video game that I like, its sequel goes out of the way to emphasize that it’s darker and grittier and more 3D and has more combat and less puzzle solving. Which is 100% not what I want or why I liked it in the first place. > > (5) I hate it when the soda and candy machines at work aren’t taking dollar bills > > (6) I hate it when I’m using **Windows** and the focus switches without my consciously switching it… ie, you launch an application then go start typing something, and then the application pops up and suddenly you’re typing into it accidentally > > (7) I hate insomnia ::loses interest after first paragraph:: Yeah, insomnia sucks. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-pet-peeves-thread/300996/24 "2005-05-24T14:41:18Z")
I really hate it when people post long quotes, with out even the least \ in it, to shorten it. ---
**Author:** ![Odinoneeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/97f17d/32.png) [@Odinoneeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odinoneeye)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-pet-peeves-thread/300996/25 "2005-05-24T15:34:20Z")
SDMB related: People who post in cafe society threads and refer to a character by the name of a different character that that actor played (calling Jonathon Archer from Enterprise “Captain Quantum” is a prime example). It’s not clever, it’s just annoying. Non-SDMN related: People who feel the need to sing at work. We don’t have cubicles, everything carries. When I’m trying to concentrate on a particularly complex job, I don’t need to hear you shout “Oh, that’s my jam” and proceed to warble along to it. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-pet-peeves-thread/300996/26 "2005-05-24T16:44:01Z")
My peeve is people who come into Pet Peeve threads and turn them into boring debates on issues that nobody is interested in anymore, if they ever were. It’s just peeves, people. If you want to have a serious debate, start your own damned thread. My other peeve is squirrels digging my stuff up. Little fuzzy bastards. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-pet-peeves-thread/300996/27 "2005-05-24T16:53:12Z")
> [@Khadaji](#): > > My biggest pet peeve on this board is when those who are obsessed with politics feel the need to drag their view into every thread, whether it is related to politics or not. Get a new hobby, heck, get a freaking life. Just like a librul Democrat to bring something like that up! 😃 My pet peeve is when people refuse to acknowledge the fact that I am omnis…omnisie…omnescie…that I know everything! ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-pet-peeves-thread/300996/28 "2005-05-24T19:46:19Z")
> [@Miss Purl McKnittington](#): > > I hate it when the only diet soda option is diet Pepsi or (horrors!) Diet Rite or some other sickness in a can. I especially hate that the only diet soda choices in fountains are usually either diet Pepsi or diet Coke. Why can’t we toss some diet clear sodas in there? . Some fountains now have Minutemaid Lite lemonade, a good choice. Try mixing it 50-50 with diet cola! My pet peeve rigth now is the (deliberately lefy un-named) SUV commercial. It has a line of black SUVs, driving WAY too close together, like they are VIP’s or something. Then they stop- and disgorge their" VIPs"- schoolkids. First of all- this reinforces the completely incorrect UL that SUV’s are “safer for my little babies” (they aren’t, _overall_). Next, it shows SUV being used as commuter vehicles- which is a misuse of resources. Then, it shows them closely taligating- with their “precious cargo” onboard- and a motorcycle cops watches them drive by, seemingly with approval- when any right minded cop would issue them each a BIG FAT tailgating ticket. :mad: Perpetuating a UL, suggesting a misuse of natural resources, and showing unsafe driving behaviour. Three strikes. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-pet-peeves-thread/300996/29 "2005-05-24T20:15:43Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Actually, that’s not at all what I was talking about. There has defniitely been the “ooh, atheists have killed more people than religious people” debate, which is relatively meaningless, as I see it. I’m talking about the general behavior, attitudes, and political beliefs of generic non-serial-killer Americans. Compare the people who want to ban gay marriage (because of their religion) or keep the 10 commandments in the classroom (because of their religion) or not allow the teaching of evolution (beacuse of their marriage), or the recent big political/religious rally called “Sunday for Faith” or whatever the hell it was called, with ANY actions taken by atheists and motivated by their atheism. > > And remember, removing “Under God” from the pledge does not make it an atheist pledge, it just makes it a pledge which does not violate beliefs of either Christians or atheists. What atheists would actually add the words “under no God, because there is no God” to the pledge, if they could? (I bring this up as an example of the kind of asymmetric situation that abounds. Don’t worry its blatantly obvious what you meant in the OP and I agree with your statement. I also knew that someone was going to take issue with it (interestingly enough doing the exact thing you were pitting) and it is not suprising that \*\* Liberal \*\* is the one that did it, he has quite the Christian persecution complex. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-pet-peeves-thread/300996/30 "2005-05-24T20:40:18Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > No, it wouldn’t be, would it. > > Of course you do. > > That was on my list of guesses, right after squash casserole. > > Well, let’s see. I could mention Stalin’s Gulags designed for “eliminating the male homosexual subculture from Russia’s capital” (Daniel D. Healey, lecturer in Russian History in the Department of History, University of Wales, Swansea). It wasn’t because of Stalin’s religion. I could mention Mao’s ubiquitous Little Red Book, not to mention his ever-present portrait from whole sides of buildings to tabletop mats. It wasn’t because of Mao’s religion. I could mention the revisionism and teaching of false history instituted by every atheist despot who seized power from his predecessor. Not to mention staged mass rallies. And it wasn’t because of their religion. I could also mention the religious people who advocate gay marriage specifically because of their religion, or those who advocate the separation of church and state specifically because of their religion. But you already know some of them. They post here. Goodness gracious, who peed in your wheaties this morning? Let me try to make myself clear, here. (1) I certainly don’t believe that all, or even most, Christians are mean/stupid/homophobic/dogmatic/extreme/Fred Phelps/Jack Chick (2) I was not, at least originally, interested, at least in this therad, of going through a list of history’s greatest monsters, both of the genocidal-dictator variety and then serial-killer-child-rapist variety, seeing how many are Christian vs. Atheist, and pretending that that proves something. (2a) Although if we WERE to have a discussion of that sort, I should point out that it’s certainly possible for someone to be motivated to do evil things by Christian beliefs, at least when they are twisted and extreme. It is much harder, bordering on impossible, for someone to be twisted to do evil things by their Atheist beliefs, because there ARE no Atheist beliefs, specifically. Saying that being an Atheist leads to doing X Y and Z is like saying that NOT being a football fan leads to doing X Y and Z (3) Instead, I was discussing the level of dogmatic obnoxiousness and want-to-make-my-beliefs-law that not-super-evil Christians and non-super-evil Atheists have. Maybe that’s a stupid discussion to have (or in this case, a stupid peeve to have), but are you claiming I’m lying and backpedalling now when I say that’s what I was talking about? ---
**Author:** ![KJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b2d939/32.png) [@KJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KJ)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-pet-peeves-thread/300996/31 "2005-05-24T22:57:26Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > The most obvious example is Michael Moore. Almost no one has ever posted anything on the SDMB about him that is 100% unreservedly positive full of glowing adulation. But there are a lot of people (including me) who have a view something like “I enjoyed the movie, and am glad that someone is passionately raising these issues so they can be discussed. However, I wish he was a little more careful about being precise and honest in what he says, and I think he’s a bit of a egomaniac sometimes. Nonetheless, I’m glad he exists”. And yet, conservatives frequently talk about “Michael Moore and his legions or die hard fans” or “you morons who worship MM and believe everything he says”. Here’s one of my pet peeves: I actually _knew_ a guy like that. His entire personality seems to revolve around being anti-Bush. One time, I was with some people who suggested that parts of Bowling for Columbine was inaccurate or at least misleading, and he got _really defensive_ about it. That’s about when I asked myself why I was even hanging out with that guy. …well, plus he was just generally annoying. That counts as a pet peeve, right? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-pet-peeves-thread/300996/32 "2005-05-24T23:07:59Z")
> [@KJ](#): > > \ One time, I was with some people who suggested that parts of Bowling for Columbine was inaccurate or at least misleading, and he got _really defensive_ about it. That’s about when I asked myself why I was even hanging out with that guy.\ Problem is, the popular media seems filled with people who, when the movie came out, were willing to do much the same, should someone suggest it was the least bit accurate. Fighting fire with fire? Reasoned discussion didn’t seem to do a thing to people who wanted to believe Moore was a liar. ---
**Author:** ![Icarus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icarus/32/72_2.png) [@Icarus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icarus)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-pet-peeves-thread/300996/33 "2005-05-24T23:43:35Z")
My pet peeve - Narcissistic arguers. The SDMB is full of folks who spend all their waking hours surfing though the every thread on the board looking for a fight. Rather than fighting ignorance, these people seem to focus on scoring points on some invisible scoreboard and pumping up their post count as if there’s a prize at the end somewhere. And they seem genetically predisposed to think that if a thought enters their mind, they must post! It’s as if they are afraid if they aren’t in permanent output mode, they would vanish in a puff of blue smoke! ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-pet-peeves-thread/300996/34 "2005-05-24T23:46:47Z")
::Scott vanishes from existance.:: ---
**Author:** ![Omega\_Glory](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7c8e57/32.png) [@Omega\_Glory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omega_Glory)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-pet-peeves-thread/300996/35 "2005-05-25T00:21:15Z")
I hate it when people don’t re-wind the vacuum cord. Come on, it takes less than a minute to wind the cord around the little knobs on the back of the vacuum. Why leave it in a tangled mass on the floor, or wrapped around the handle that has to be unknotted later? Save some time and do it right in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![inkleberry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f17d59/32.png) [@inkleberry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inkleberry)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-pet-peeves-thread/300996/36 "2005-05-25T00:39:52Z")
- (3) I like it when women on [match.com](http://match.com) respond positively when I send them email. But I like it a lot less when that response is a “wink”. Where does that leave me? Should I email again? Clearly, she’s interested. But what’s the next step?\* It means she cannot reply with an email because she does not have paid services. It behooves you to always include a non-match email in your letters. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-pet-peeves-thread/300996/37 "2005-05-25T00:58:56Z")
> [@Icarus](#): > > My pet peeve - > > Narcissistic arguers. The SDMB is full of folks who spend all their waking hours surfing though the every thread on the board looking for a fight. Rather than fighting ignorance, these people seem to focus on scoring points on some invisible scoreboard and pumping up their post count as if there’s a prize at the end somewhere. And they seem genetically predisposed to think that if a thought enters their mind, they must post! It’s as if they are afraid if they aren’t in permanent output mode, they would vanish in a puff of blue smoke! Oh come on give **Lib** a break he doesn’t mean to do it, god makes him… ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-pet-peeves-thread/300996/38 "2005-05-25T14:56:20Z")
Psst - hey, **inkleberry** - see post #6 in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![inkleberry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f17d59/32.png) [@inkleberry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inkleberry)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-pet-peeves-thread/300996/39 "2005-05-25T15:59:28Z")
> [@featherlou](#): > > Psst - hey, **inkleberry** - see post #6 in this thread. 😛 Got lost in scroll. And it bears repeating. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-pet-peeves-thread/300996/40 "2005-05-25T16:02:29Z")
> [@inkleberry](#): > > 😛 > > Got lost in scroll. And it bears repeating. I just figured it meant I wasn’t in the clique. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-pet-peeves-thread/300996.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-pet-peeves-thread/300996.md?page=3)