1  2  |   Order by index

Jul 6, 2003, 11:33pm

"she wasn't rich and famous"

she wasnt famous? /:|

-SWE

Jul 7, 2003, 12:50am

I know and now i see it now. I only took KBK's side cause A2BrianK was on
loan to be :-/

Jul 7, 2003, 1:12am

I take it this must be coming from personal experience, seeing as you can't even spell 'truly' properly...

The moral of this story?

If you can understand what the man is saying, then shut that gaping orifice in what you call a face before it spews out something potentially more embarrassing than what you already vomited.

If you don't have anything to say to Richard other than being an asinine pedant, then don't. It's really quite simple. So Richard wants attention. Well, maybe you didn't notice, but by nitpicking about his spelling and arguing with him, you're doing just that.

[View Quote]

Jul 7, 2003, 2:53am

I was wondering why everyone hadn't noticed.....sheesh


[View Quote]

Jul 7, 2003, 3:01am

Richard....
When people talk bad about you, here is some good advice: IGNORE THEM!!!
Who cares if people talk about you....don't give them what they want by
leaving AW. If you think you are doing good for the community, keep doing
it...who cares what ppl think about you. I know that people have talked
about me in the past and you know what? Nine times out of ten, I don't give
a shit!
If you post threads like this about people and how they talk about you and
how you aren't appreciated and such and give them something to flame, they
are going to take every opportunity possible to flame you about it.

Elyk
[View Quote]

Jul 7, 2003, 3:45am

[View Quote] She was more famous than the Pope.

--
--Bowen--

Jul 7, 2003, 3:54am

aahh my mistake, but that's not the point. she helped others for the sake
of making the world a better place, not to get appreciated. you wouldn't
have found her stomping around the streets complaining how miserable she was

Jul 7, 2003, 7:30am

Then, if I'm helping the guy, by giving him more attention, why do you care?
Where is my medal?

LF

Jul 7, 2003, 9:03am

Umm... I hardly care for Richard's particular brand of melodrama, but I like your staunch accordance with 'newsgroup tradition' even less. Just because someone has been in AW longer than another doesn't give him the right to act as though he's an anal retentive, xenophobic thirteen year old with a penchant for 'mine is bigger than yours!' competitions.

I apologize if I overreacted, but threads like these are, quite frankly, starting to piss me off. I'm getting tired of wading through endless ego-inflating one-liners or seeing legitimate topics being steered off into flame wars by the well-known trolling faction.

Just for the sake of argument, let's use this thread as an example. First we have a somewhat dramatic but completely harmless post that is no threat to anyone. Then along comes a mighty warrior who can't resist the urge to give his ego a cheap boost by demonstrating his obviously superior intellect, and feels the distinct need to totally ignore the message at hand and instead focus on irrelevant spelling mistakes. But hark! Thence cometh the cavalry to support their mighty leader in the quest to vanquish all that is erroneous! But woe, these would-be glory fighters are indeed inflicted with the same plague of the one to be vanquished. Undeterred by this, the soldiers fight valiantly until their spelling-error ammunition is depleted, but fear not! another tactic is at hand.

The basis of this new strategy involves a complex tactical maneuver which relies on a meme, or better thought of as an idea virus. The core element of this virus is an illogical thought process which convinces the infected that flaming the living hell out of someone for making trivial mistakes is indeed in rigid accordance with the finest traditions of AW newsgroup posting. It doesn't need to be said that this virus has made exemplary progress in spreading itself.

Little do the light warriors know, however, of a simple way to defeat, once and for all, the poisoned soul of The Erroneous and Melodramatic Enemy. This method is surprisingly painless and requires no effort to enact. All a warrior has to do is to ignore any errors in a post and instead respond to the content therein. Failing that (assuming that the content of the post is rubbish written by an infidel who will burn in the eternal afterlife punished forevermore by the flaming swords of the guardian light warriors), the said warrior may then simply ignore the post and many would-be casualties of war will be spared. In fact, by doing this, the light-warrior faction would be discouraging posters from making similar pleas for attention and thereby winning future battles before having to actually do battle. If only Gandhi could see it now.

And now, to be fully inconsistent and for once follow my own advice, I will now cease further posting to this thread, because after careful examination, I have found that I hate it.

[View Quote]

Jul 7, 2003, 11:05am

Lets take this in steps, shall we?

"...but threads like these are, quite frankly, starting to piss me off."
Whos' forcing you to read the thread? Certainly you don't feel the 'need' to
continue reading a thread if it does not cater to you'r tastes, and, I'm
presuming, no one is forcing you to continue reading.

"Just because someone has been in AW longer than another..."
I seriously doubt I am senior to any in the newgroups. I have never made a
comment about the rights of 'senior citizens' over junior ones.

"xenophobic thirteen year old..."
I fail to see any connection between a xenophobic teenager and someone who
posts on a newsgroup full of technically foreign people.

"... well-known trolling faction."
Could you tell me where I can sign up?

"First we have a somewhat dramatic but completely harmless post..."
This post may have been quite harmless to you, but when someone complains
that they not appriciated enough by the community, as a member of that
community, I get offended.

" ...feels the distinct need to totally ignore the message..."
I believe I did address what I found wrong about his statement outside of
the spelling errors.

"...the cavalry..."
I have yet to see mine.

"The core element of this virus is an illogical thought process which
convinces the infected that flaming the living hell out of someone for
making trivial mistakes is indeed in rigid accordance with the finest
traditions of AW newsgroup posting"
Welcome to the newsgroups?

You contradict your own method by responding to a post by a proposed
"infidel"


My full published works will be on bookshelfs shortly. Enjoy.

LF

Jul 7, 2003, 11:43am

I'm being quite a hypocrite for posting when I said that I've stopped, but oh well. I thought that I made myself pretty clear, but there are some misunderstandings still abroad. I promise to beat myself with a wooden spoon to make up for it, though.

[View Quote] Threads like these are a disruption to the newsgroups. It has nothing to do with my taste. It has more to do with common decency and usenet etiquette.

> "Just because someone has been in AW longer than another..."
> I seriously doubt I am senior to any in the newgroups. I have never made a
> comment about the rights of 'senior citizens' over junior ones.

Then I misunderstood you. My apologies.

> "xenophobic thirteen year old..."
> I fail to see any connection between a xenophobic teenager and someone who
> posts on a newsgroup full of technically foreign people.

Hint: try reading. I was using a xenophobic, anal retentive teenager as an example for the behavior of some posters here.

> "... well-known trolling faction."
> Could you tell me where I can sign up?

I was not implying that you are a troll, but I don't believe a sign-up is necessary to attain the position if you're interested.

> "First we have a somewhat dramatic but completely harmless post..."
> This post may have been quite harmless to you, but when someone complains
> that they not appriciated enough by the community, as a member of that
> community, I get offended.

If you're this easily offended, then you shouldn't be using the Internet. The Internet is the largest database of human opinion and controversy in the history of humankind. You will find people you disagree with, and you will find opinions that you detest. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

> " ...feels the distinct need to totally ignore the message..."
> I believe I did address what I found wrong about his statement outside of
> the spelling errors.

It was a cheap one-liner that sparked a whole pandora's box of cheap one-liners that became overkilled after the first two or three posts.

> "...the cavalry..."
> I have yet to see mine.

Erm... huh?

> "The core element of this virus is an illogical thought process which
> convinces the infected that flaming the living hell out of someone for
> making trivial mistakes is indeed in rigid accordance with the finest
> traditions of AW newsgroup posting"
> Welcome to the newsgroups?

Negative on that, Houston. People who think that the newsgroups should be like this are the whole problem. It should *not* be like this. Many forums operate on a friendly, useful basis just fine. There's no reason why we can't.

> You contradict your own method by responding to a post by a proposed
> "infidel"

If you re-read that section, you may find that I was not calling you an infidel. In case you didn't notice, the entire post was laced heavily with sarcasm. The "infidels" are the people who make spelling errors and get roasted. The nitpickers are the light warriors. A novel concept, this sarcasm thing. It may just catch on someday.

Jul 7, 2003, 12:00pm

I forgive you for responding


xenaphobia cannot be used as a trait someone embodies online. Xenophobic
people, by definition, would not use the internet, beacuse the internet in
itself presents so much foreign material.

I know you were not implying that I was a troll, if you were, I know you
would have been more up front about it. You sarcasm and symbolism was not
wasted, I go every sentence of it. Apparently you did not pick up on mine.

I am not easily offended, or else I would been in a screaming fit at your
posts by now ;) I can obviously "stand the heat" by being able to respond to
yours and other posts, which apparently the rest of my "faction" cannot.

No one said the newsgoups should be like this. The one fact remains that the
newsgroups are like this though.

By the by, I was calling myself an infidel. I would have thought you would
notice the irony in the comment.


Give the sarcasm idea a few years though. Its will come around eventually.


LF

Jul 7, 2003, 12:43pm

[View Quote] You are most gracious.

> xenaphobia cannot be used as a trait someone embodies online. Xenophobic
> people, by definition, would not use the internet, beacuse the internet in
> itself presents so much foreign material.

Not necessarily. Groups of people can quite effectively isolate their communities on the Internet and keep themselves free of outside contamination. You must also keep in mind that there are various levels of xenophobia. Obviously, a complete xenophobe would most likely not use the Internet.

> I know you were not implying that I was a troll, if you were, I know you
> would have been more up front about it. You sarcasm and symbolism was not
> wasted, I go every sentence of it. Apparently you did not pick up on mine.

I might pick up on it if it was expressed more clearly. You have to remember that on the Internet there is no added benefit of voice tones and bodily gestures. On a text-based medium, you have to carefully reference your pronouns with antecedents, and make sure your word-usage is descriptive and concise.

> I am not easily offended, or else I would been in a screaming fit at your
> posts by now ;) I can obviously "stand the heat" by being able to respond to
> yours and other posts, which apparently the rest of my "faction" cannot.

Erm... but you just said that you were offended by Richard's post, which strikes me as being pretty non-offensive to anyone with a decent self-esteem rating. And responding to my posts has nothing to do with "standing the heat". Standing the heat has to do with not being easily offended in the first place, which you seem to be undecided about...

> No one said the newsgoups should be like this. The one fact remains that the
> newsgroups are like this though.

And your point is... what? I know what the newsgroups are like. You don't have to tell me. I'm simply saying that things could (and should) be changed around here.

> By the by, I was calling myself an infidel. I would have thought you would
> notice the irony in the comment.

Here's what you said:

"You contradict your own method by responding to a post by a proposed "infidel"".

Unfortunately, there is no reference in there as to who was proposing your infidelity. If you had said 'self-proclaimed infidel', then it would have made sense.

Jul 7, 2003, 3:09pm

[View Quote] Someone's invested some good money and time into their thesaurus.

--
--Bowen--

Jul 7, 2003, 3:13pm

Err, Shred? I trust you realize that by nit-picking over Light Form's
post, you're engaging in exactly the same behavior you were raging
against just a few posts back, right? If this is supposed to be some
huge ironic joke, I must say I don't get it.

However, I will agree that the NGs here leave a lot to be desired. These
NGs should be a place where people can openly discuss whatever topics
they want to, without having to worry about some anal-retentive geek
with a superiority complex (*cough*) jumping all over them for having a
few letters out of place. But, for whatever reason, the more vocal of
the AW "big dogs" that reside here seem to be of the mentality that this
is their "yard", and heaven forefend if any of the "little dogs" try to
get a word in edgewise.

As Shred pointed out, this thread is the perfect example. Granted,
Richard's post may have been a tad melodramatic, but all that needed to
be said was "Don't worry about what other people think and help the
community for the sake of helping, not for appreciation." Instead, some
of the NG inhabitants (some of whom I thought had more sense than to
engage in behavior like this, but apparently not) decided to mock him,
thereby proving Richard's original point for posting in the first place.
Good job! :P

Perhaps it's simply a side-effect of these NGs being associated with a
chat environment. Since people don't think they have the time to stop
and think before they say something in chat, they stand to reason that
you can't do that here in the NGs either. Or it could be that since they
don't have to interact with NG dwellers in "real time", they feel
they're free to act however they want. Whatever the case may be, it's an
unfortunate state of things that can be easily rectified. As corny as it
may sound, perhaps if people used just a dash of heart along with their
brain when they posted, this place could finally fulfill its true
purpose as a place of civilized discussion.

[View Quote] --
Goober King
Thinking with his stomach
awnews at awnews.org

Jul 7, 2003, 4:27pm

[View Quote] Your definition of nit-picking is a little different than mine. Nit-picking, for me, is along the lines of pointing out spelling errors and grammatical mistakes. Or something else equally trivial. I wasn't nit-picking, I was downright arguing :P

Jul 7, 2003, 4:37pm

[View Quote] So, being a hypocrite? :P

--
--Bowen--

Jul 7, 2003, 5:06pm

[View Quote] No. Nit-picking and arguing are two entirely different things. Nit-picking is frivolous bullcorn spewed by people who don't have a reason to say anything but want to make an appearance in the thread anyhow. An argument (or its more civil sibling, debate) *usually* involves some kind of logical stance presented by all involved parties, or, at the very least, something more solid than having a heart attack over a spelling error.

I criticized the posters of this thread for obsessing over something as silly as spelling just because they had nothing else to say. They did this simply to be cruel when it really wasn't called for. If it *was* called for, then they could have been more creative than going on about a spelling mistake for about eight posts.

There is a time and place to step forward and boldly proclaim your opinions, and there is a time and place for holding your tongue. I felt the need to speak up about something that's been going on for too a long time now, and voila - I did. That's whole different story from posting one-liners to every other thread with the sole intention of either starting a fight or bruising someone's ego.

Jul 7, 2003, 5:07pm

[View Quote] So, now you're arguing over arguing over something as silly as spelling.
How's that better? ;)

--
--Bowen--

Jul 7, 2003, 5:12pm

[View Quote] You thoroughly missed the point. Or maybe you didn't, and you just don't care. Given the way that you romp around the newsgroups like a cock in the barnyard, I'd say the latter is more likely.

Anyhow, since you are obviously only interesting in getting into another of your bar-room brawls, I'm not going to waste my time with you.

You may post any number of thoughtless, vapid one-liners in response to my posts, and you will now find them to be summarily ignored.

Jul 7, 2003, 5:17pm

[View Quote] Well, let us take a breather. First, you complained/"argued" about them
nit-picking others. Then you continue to progress with the struggled.
Which, undoutedly, you're still progressing with... even though you said
you stopped.

> Anyhow, since you are obviously only interesting in getting into another
> of your bar-room brawls, I'm not going to waste my time with you.

I thought I was a cock in the barnyard? Now I'm in a bar? Which
analogy are we sticking with. Or are your analogies ubiquitious now
that you have your awesome thesaurus?

> You may post any number of thoughtless, vapid one-liners in response to
> my posts, and you will now find them to be summarily ignored.

Vapid, mmm, nothing like trying to out-word your targets, eh Shred?

--
--Bowen--

Jul 7, 2003, 5:43pm

Apparently. Whenever someone feels the need to split up a person's post
into chunks and argue each paragraph/sentence/whatever individually, to
me that's nit-picking (i.e. arguing over the definition of a xenophobe
has nothing to do with Richard's original plight). Posts should not be
taken in bits and pieces, but as a whole (unless the person you're
replying to specifically addresses separate topics in the same post, of
course), otherwise you run the risk of missing the main point of the
original post entirely, something that happens way too often in here. :P

[View Quote] --
Goober King
Missing: Point - If found, email at:
awnews at awnews.org

Jul 7, 2003, 5:52pm

[View Quote] Erm, Goob... it wasn't me who decided to split up the posts and start going into a battle of semantics. And in defense of LF, he *did* address different parts of my post when he split it.

Jul 8, 2003, 12:14am

Good for him. That doesn't mean you have to continue the practice. I'm
assuming that when you wrote your post, you were wanting to use various
means to convey one singular point. But rather than discuss that main
point, LF decided to attack each individual route you took to get to
your point, thereby diluting your original message and clouding the issue.

Now, you could have easily steered the conversation back on course by
consolidating all of his meandering points into one cohesive rebuttal.
But instead, you chose to attack each of his points that were attacking
each of you points, which wound up sidetracking the entire discussion
even further.

This is not how it works in a real-time conversation, so it shouldn't be
any different here. People's posts should be taken at face value, rather
than trying to read between the lines and chop the discussion all to
hell. This is how flame wars get started, and pretty soon, everyone
forgets what the original topic was in the first place.

[View Quote] > Erm, Goob... it wasn't me who decided to split up the posts and start
> going into a battle of semantics. And in defense of LF, he *did* address
> different parts of my post when he split it.
>

--
Goober King
Tango for two
awnews at awnews.org

Jul 8, 2003, 1:00am

[View Quote] Sometimes a long winded, thorough rebuttal is appropriate, and sometimes it isn't. When your audience isn't listening anymore and is busy throwing rocks at you, then the time is not come. Likewise when you're out of breath from the previous three tries.

If someone's determined to ignore my posting but reply anyway, there isn't much I can do about it. Sure, I can keep rewriting a post in different ways and reiterate what I said in the first place, but there's a limit to how many times I'll say something that's falling on deaf ears :P

Granted, I shouldn't have taken the bait and simply gone with the punches as the posting progressed. Once again I will beat myself with a wooden spoon. Everyone makes mistakes - even saintly Goobers with a long history of silly arguments under his belt.

Jul 8, 2003, 9:11am

[View Quote] Indeed. But, thankfully, the real world allows its members to change if
they so desire. :)

--
Goober King
Breaking the winds of change
awnews at awnews.org

Jul 10, 2003, 6:51am

Hi everyone:

[View Quote] What's going to happen to XEON-TV ??? PLEASE don't me it GOING AWAY
too..... :-(((((

Sorry to see you go Richard. I hope you re-consider....

PC Hamster

1  2  |   Order by index