NationStates Jolt Archive

1. "10 things that annoy me about..." threads

2. People who freak out if somebody disagrees on some minor point of their political ideals.

3. People who complain about the internal politics/affairs of countries they dont live in or care about otherwise (not JUST the ones who complain about America)

4. Trolls, flamers and so forth that get away with it because they are trolling/flaming things the mods dislike.

5. Copy/Paste news spam from obviously biased websites (be it Foxnews or Goleft or whatever) without entertaining commentary.

6. The Anti-Bush/Kerry/America/Europe/Mexico/Mongolia threads, seriously, Im not saying you shouldnt debat them, but once you get to the thirty second thread, the novely wears off.

7. Uber-generalizers. I really dislike being put on the same shelf as Limbaugh simply because I happen to think that low taxes and a small government are a good thing, or because I think that Saddam was a genocidal megalomaniac who needed to be removed ASAP.

8. Party-liners. Seriously. If Bush says something is good, you MUST say it is bad. If Bush was to go to New Orleans and hand out twinkies to homeless people, it would be racist and not doing enough, if he handed out a weeks worth of MRE's, it would be a waste of government funds. Likewise with Kerry/whoever is the evil-hippie-liberal now, if he changes his mind its ZOMGFLIPFLOPWAFFLEPANCAKE! and so forth. Give it a rest.

9. Non-entertaining conspiracy theorists. People who BELEIVE the stuff in Weekly World News (or other similar papers), including the giant sardine orbiting Jupiter and Castro's genetically engineered sharks.

10. Anti-War threads, this particular 'fad' has pretty much passed from what I can see...but its still annoying. A thosand threads repeating the same points in the same frothing-at-the-mouth language do not a point make. That would be my opinion, but I happen to think its a good one.


Take the above points how you will, and no, they are not all %100 serious. Some go down to %50 or so.

There's one thing above all others that annoys me to no end about this forum, and I've seen it happen in almost every thread I've ever been in.

Whenever I invoke an example to prove my point, people invariably latch onto the 'thesis' section of my example, without bothering to countenance the actual point itself. For instance, I recently pointed out that life expectancy figures for the US didn't have the dominance you might expect over their Cuban counterparts partly because of life-complicating problems that grow exponentially as the population grows larger. My opponent seemed to concede that this may be true, but he couldn't resist answering one of my examples specifically, something along the lines of "I doubt genetic defects would lower our figures," or something to that effect. Usually, when I invoke a metaphor or point out an example, it's not actually the staple of my argument. It can be, but that's not always the case. It drives me nuts when people do this, but I usually take it as evidence of a frighteningly insufficient counterargument.

Methinks the 10 things trend is spreading

Methinks the 10 things trend is spreading

Quick, get a bag.....

1. "10 things that annoy me about..." threads

Then why did you start one??

Trolls
Noobs
Nationalists
Nazis
Capitalists
Nazis
Noobs
Tadhg :sniper:
Terrorists
Teh Roxx00r
Flamed?
GLINT
SOILFLOWER MUST DIE :sniper: :gundge: :mp5:
NOOBS

There's one thing above all others that annoys me to no end about this forum, and I've seen it happen in almost every thread I've ever been in.

Whenever I invoke an example to prove my point, people invariably latch onto the 'thesis' section of my example, without bothering to countenance the actual point itself. For instance, I recently pointed out that life expectancy figures for the US didn't have the dominance you might expect over their Cuban counterparts partly because of life-complicating problems that grow exponentially as the population grows larger. My opponent seemed to concede that this may be true, but he couldn't resist answering one of my examples specifically, something along the lines of "I doubt genetic defects would lower our figures," or something to that effect. Usually, when I invoke a metaphor or point out an example, it's not actually the staple of my argument. It can be, but that's not always the case. It drives me nuts when people do this, but I usually take it as evidence of a frighteningly insufficient counterargument.
*makes a quick note, in case I ever end up in a debate against Melkor*
It's unlikely, as I never bother with the debate threads, for much the same reason as point 6 in the first post.

"2. People who freak out if somebody disagrees on some minor point of their political ideals.

7. Uber-generalizers. I really dislike being put on the same shelf as Limbaugh simply because I happen to think that low taxes and a small government are a good thing, or because I think that Saddam was a genocidal megalomaniac who needed to be removed ASAP.

8. Party-liners. Seriously. If Bush says something is good, you MUST say it is bad. If Bush was to go to New Orleans and hand out twinkies to homeless people, it would be racist and not doing enough, if he handed out a weeks worth of MRE's, it would be a waste of government funds. Likewise with Kerry/whoever is the evil-hippie-liberal now, if he changes his mind its ZOMGFLIPFLOPWAFFLEPANCAKE! and so forth. Give it a rest."

I find the above to be the most detrimental to debate. Those who tend to post this way seem to have a certain mind-set or character flaw that makes reasonable conversation or debate with them impossible.

The remainder of your annoyances describe the detritus of the forum that I can wade through and largely ignore.

Then why did you start one??
See the disclaimer at the bottom of my post.

1. "10 things that annoy me about..." threads

2. People who freak out if somebody disagrees on some minor point of their political ideals.

3. People who complain about the internal politics/affairs of countries they dont live in or care about otherwise (not JUST the ones who complain about America)

4. Trolls, flamers and so forth that get away with it because they are trolling/flaming things the mods dislike.

5. Copy/Paste news spam from obviously biased websites (be it Foxnews or Goleft or whatever) without entertaining commentary.

6. The Anti-Bush/Kerry/America/Europe/Mexico/Mongolia threads, seriously, Im not saying you shouldnt debat them, but once you get to the thirty second thread, the novely wears off.

7. Uber-generalizers. I really dislike being put on the same shelf as Limbaugh simply because I happen to think that low taxes and a small government are a good thing, or because I think that Saddam was a genocidal megalomaniac who needed to be removed ASAP.

8. Party-liners. Seriously. If Bush says something is good, you MUST say it is bad. If Bush was to go to New Orleans and hand out twinkies to homeless people, it would be racist and not doing enough, if he handed out a weeks worth of MRE's, it would be a waste of government funds. Likewise with Kerry/whoever is the evil-hippie-liberal now, if he changes his mind its ZOMGFLIPFLOPWAFFLEPANCAKE! and so forth. Give it a rest.

9. Non-entertaining conspiracy theorists. People who BELEIVE the stuff in Weekly World News (or other similar papers), including the giant sardine orbiting Jupiter and Castro's genetically engineered sharks.

10. Anti-War threads, this particular 'fad' has pretty much passed from what I can see...but its still annoying. A thosand threads repeating the same points in the same frothing-at-the-mouth language do not a point make. That would be my opinion, but I happen to think its a good one.


Take the above points how you will, and no, they are not all %100 serious. Some go down to %50 or so.
This would be a fair point, if it wasn't for the fact that America's foreign policy has consequences outside of the States. For instance, the UK's Prime Minister seems to be operating on the assumption that he can't even go for a piss without asking Bush's permission, and frankly if the chimp is going to dictate our foreign policy, then we're entitled to a vote in American Presidential elections.

This would be a fair point, if it wasn't for the fact that America's foreign policy has consequences outside of the States. For instance, the UK's Prime Minister seems to be operating on the assumption that he can't even go for a piss without asking Bush's permission, and frankly if the chimp is going to dictate our foreign policy, then we're entitled to a vote in American Presidential elections.

I agree, it wouldn't make that much of a difference though....

This would be a fair point, if it wasn't for the fact that America's foreign policy has consequences outside of the States. For instance, the UK's Prime Minister seems to be operating on the assumption that he can't even go for a piss without asking Bush's permission, and frankly if the chimp is going to dictate our foreign policy, then we're entitled to a vote in American Presidential elections.

I agree, it wouldn't make that much of a difference though....

Bush didn't actually get elected in 2004, so why would he need our votes to re-elect a republican?

This would be a fair point, if it wasn't for the fact that America's foreign policy has consequences outside of the States. For instance, the UK's Prime Minister seems to be operating on the assumption that he can't even go for a piss without asking Bush's permission, and frankly if the chimp is going to dictate our foreign policy, then we're entitled to a vote in American Presidential elections.
I think the original poster was mainly talking about criticism of a nation's domestic policies by a foreigner. Like if I went on the "Airsoft to be banned in UK" thread and started badgering the British people there about how their government is stupid for trying to ban toy guns. It's out of line for me to do such a thing.

What bothers me about forums like this is when people post mindless insults against President George W. Bush. He's a good guy, after all.

I think the original poster was mainly talking about criticism of a nation's domestic policies by a foreigner. Like if I went on the "Airsoft to be banned in UK" thread and started badgering the British people there about how their government is stupid for trying to ban toy guns. It's out of line for me to do such a thing.
If that is what he was complaining about, then fair enough. I don't recall seeing a lot of criticism of Bush's domestic policies by foreigners here though, it's all been Iraq and in that case, my point definitely stands.

I think the original poster was mainly talking about criticism of a nation's domestic policies by a foreigner. Like if I went on the "Airsoft to be banned in UK" thread and started badgering the British people there about how their government is stupid for trying to ban toy guns. It's out of line for me to do such a thing.

Why is it out of line for you to comment on things??? I'm British, btw, and i cant see why that would be annoying.

Why is it out of line for you to comment on things??? I'm British, btw, and i cant see why that would be annoying.
It's your country and the laws are passed by the representatives that you've voted for. If that's how the majority of your people want to live, and those laws aren't barbaric, then who am I to criticize you? It's not like you're stoning gays to death or something.

11) original posts that consist of "i hate this" and a freaking LINK to some other website

This would be a fair point, if it wasn't for the fact that America's foreign policy has consequences outside of the States. For instance, the UK's Prime Minister seems to be operating on the assumption that he can't even go for a piss without asking Bush's permission, and frankly if the chimp is going to dictate our foreign policy, then we're entitled to a vote in American Presidential elections.
12) people who hijack a thread in order to bash the US while pretending to respond to a point that specifically mentions NOT JUST AMERICA

ya so this 10 things is getting a bit old, but perhaps the reason for the constant reoccurance of Bush threads etc is because they're topical. This is a semi political/current affairs forum, if its in the news or bother most of us its gonna be debated. Abortion has been dragged through preverbially(and yes I can't spell so don't make 'people who are illiterate your number 11 :D ) dirt so much.

12) people who hijack a thread in order to bash the US while pretending to respond to a point that specifically mentions NOT JUST AMERICA

but its fun! :p

1. People who post domestic crap on an international forum, and then bitch when forigners voice their opinion. That's just plain silly.

2. People who think patriotism is blindly following whoever happens to be in power, and are actually proud of being unthinking puppets.

3. People who thinks there's some magical attribute(s) associated with their, or others, heritage, whether cultural or racial.

4. People who don't have the balls to admit they hate gays because they want to, but hide behind religious bullshit etc.

5. Capitalists, who thinks corporatism is a great idea.

6. Authoritarians, who for some reason think the rest of us wouldn't rather make up or own minds & live by our own ideals. Or think that a bunch of strangers are better at deciding for us than we are. Whichever applies, I'm honestly not sure.

7. People who construct elaborate examples to illustrate some concept or idea, but aren't prepared to discuss their own example.

8. People who feel like they have to debate every single aspect of an analogy, whether it's relevant for the debate at hand or not.

9. Authoritarians, who think some imaginary friend up in the clouds are better at deciding how I want to live my life than I am.

10. All the ones who don't feel the other points apply to them.

7, 8 & 10 are up for debate, the rest definitly aren't.

12) people who hijack a thread in order to bash the US while pretending to respond to a point that specifically mentions NOT JUST AMERICA
Actually I was bashing the British Prime Minister with that one.

1. "10 things that annoy me about..." threads

2. People who freak out if somebody disagrees on some minor point of their political ideals.

3. People who complain about the internal politics/affairs of countries they dont live in or care about otherwise (not JUST the ones who complain about America)

4. Trolls, flamers and so forth that get away with it because they are trolling/flaming things the mods dislike.

5. Copy/Paste news spam from obviously biased websites (be it Foxnews or Goleft or whatever) without entertaining commentary.

6. The Anti-Bush/Kerry/America/Europe/Mexico/Mongolia threads, seriously, Im not saying you shouldnt debat them, but once you get to the thirty second thread, the novely wears off.

7. Uber-generalizers. I really dislike being put on the same shelf as Limbaugh simply because I happen to think that low taxes and a small government are a good thing, or because I think that Saddam was a genocidal megalomaniac who needed to be removed ASAP.

8. Party-liners. Seriously. If Bush says something is good, you MUST say it is bad. If Bush was to go to New Orleans and hand out twinkies to homeless people, it would be racist and not doing enough, if he handed out a weeks worth of MRE's, it would be a waste of government funds. Likewise with Kerry/whoever is the evil-hippie-liberal now, if he changes his mind its ZOMGFLIPFLOPWAFFLEPANCAKE! and so forth. Give it a rest.

9. Non-entertaining conspiracy theorists. People who BELEIVE the stuff in Weekly World News (or other similar papers), including the giant sardine orbiting Jupiter and Castro's genetically engineered sharks.

10. Anti-War threads, this particular 'fad' has pretty much passed from what I can see...but its still annoying. A thosand threads repeating the same points in the same frothing-at-the-mouth language do not a point make. That would be my opinion, but I happen to think its a good one.


Take the above points how you will, and no, they are not all %100 serious. Some go down to %50 or so.

For me, #1 should also include how people try to influence you in the most ridiculous ways so you can agree with the influencer's beliefs.

1. People who post domestic crap on an international forum, and then bitch when forigners voice their opinion. That's just plain silly.

I 500% agree.

1. People who post domestic crap on an international forum, and then bitch when forigners voice their opinion. That's just plain silly.

You hit the nail on the head with that one, and wrote just what I was about to write.