I'm not in the general habit of banning commenters, but having already established the precedent with Anonymous Moron, I guess I need to do a better job of policing. I am going to henceforth ban anyone who uses the acronym "LOL" in response to something that they themselves wrote.

Why? Because it is juvenile, and stupid. Anyone who does it apparently never learned the old wisdom that one doesn't laugh at one's own jokes. It looks particularly stupid when they're not funny. In fact, it looks stupid to the max when they are never funny. But then, folks who do it are generally not the type of people who are able to realize how stupid they look.

In addition, most people (at least in this comments section, but I've noticed it in other fora as well) who do so also tend to add zero signal, and a lot of noise.

For that matter, I also want to add some tips for people who want to quote other people, to avoid confusion and ugly comments. There is a simple HTML tag, that looks like this: <em>quoted text</em>. Please use it. Also, please put your name in the "Name" field, unless you're determined to remain anonymous. I have no interest in seeing a name in a comment.

I am going to henceforth ban anyone who uses the acronym "LOL" in response to something that they themselves wrote.

What about "Bwa ha ha ha!"? Is that still okay?

How about "ROTFLMAO"?

You guys are really pushing the envelope here. ;-)

While we're on the subject of electronic acronym slang:

(1) What does the Z in 'ZOMG' mean?

(2) Why do they add the second half of 'WTFBBQ'?

I think that the Z in ZOMG comes from errant Z's inserted when someone fat-fingers the shift key when entering OMG. It then gains a following until it becoms mocking convention to always use it.

Sort of the same way random 1's sneak into a string of exclamation points, and then some people mockingly type out "!!!!1!11!!eleventy!!!"

And no, I don't hang out on Fark, but I know a lot of people that do, and that's where a lot of that stuff starts.

In fact, it looks stupid to the max when they are never funny.

Were you blowing a bubble with your gum and twirling your hair with your finger when you wrote that? Because that was the mental image I had...

Ok, now I've read the comment. Some people do seem to have a sort of ego in which they find themselves humorous when others simple find them tedious. Stupid really isn't the word... Arrogant, Absurd, Borish come to mind.

Ok, now I've read the comment.

Which one?

Which one?

Fair enough, I read down a little further...

Clean away, Rand. Spring is almost over. We need good hygiene.

Oh, I must admit a LOL moment when I read "BRAMD MEW".

(2) Why do they add the second half of 'WTFBBQ'?

To add my little bit of noise here, perhaps that's a popular phrase to utter when you die mysteriously in a first person shooter. Eg, get gibbleted instantly without seeing the foe who did it to you.

Ahhhh, the slippery slope appears. I can't begin to fathom why Brian hasn't posted a comment to this thread yet. I hope he does so I can, in Leland's words, have a LOL moment.

Seriously though, you do put up w/ quite a bit Rand. I thought about doing the obvious AM thing and suggest therapy...ahem, LOL but figured that would fly like a brick...through a window...w/ the same results.

As an alternative to banning (except for egregious profanity or bigotry) I would suggest putting the poster's name at the beginning of the comment. I usually recognize Swiderski (sp?) and Oler by the second sentence and scroll on by quickly but it would be more pleasant if I didn't have to read some of the verbal diarrhea before realizing I was wasting time and brain cells. This would also make it easy to skip those who refuse to use an ID of any kind. If you aren't willing to attach even an alias to your comment I have no interest in it.

"but it would be more pleasant if I didn't have to read some of the verbal diarrhea before realizing I was wasting time and brain cells."

Diarrhea is instantly recognizable by its smell, regardless of who dispenses it. If you are ignorant of its offensive qualities until you happen to notice/figure out who the culprit is, then, by definition, you are interested in an idea only by virtue of who happens to be its author. You're officially a Groupthinker.

On the other hand, at least you're in the right forum.

Andy,
Verbal diarrhea in my experience has no odor whether written or spoken. As to your other allegation, having read several posts by the people I named, I have reached the conclusion that they have nothing of value to offer. I could be mistaken about that but to accuse me of group think because I have reached my own conclusion based on their previously read output is foolish. I (and you) make these judgements constantly. When Al Sharpton opens his mouth I am perfectly justified based on past experience in ignoring him. Ignoring him, Oler, Swiderski or anyone else who has shown themselves to be ignorant or wrong (always, of course IMO) or in Sharpton's case, bigoted, is in fact a requirement of maintaining mental health in the modern world.

Having tried brussel sprouts several times and being nauseated every time, using your logic I should still try them whenever the opportunity arises. Fortunately I am capable of learning.

Examine the conclusion you reached about me based on a single post and recognise you are at least as guilty of what you accuse me as I am. What conclusion would I reach if I went back through comments for the last month and checked your output here?

Andy,
Rereading your response and mine to it I realise now I gave you too much credit. Your post gets more idiotic every time I read it. Welcome to my skip list, no further research needed.

LOLWFAHIHADP

ATOLBILTGSBTR

RBTTFTDWMUATF.....

If you space geeks can't figure that one out, turn in your objectivist card, pack up your pictures and move.

"As to your other allegation, having read several posts by the people I named, I have reached the conclusion that they have nothing of value to offer."

If all discussion here was on the same subject, day in and day out, I'd agree with you. However, people offer a variety of opinions and ideas on various subjects. As the subject changes, so do opinions. By judging a post by its author, you automatically reject the substance of the post. If you do that in all cases, you're limiting your intellectual horizon to only that of the group you agree with. Hence, Groupthink.

"Having tried brussel sprouts several times and being nauseated every time, using your logic I should still try them whenever the opportunity arises. Fortunately I am capable of learning."

Probably a poor analogy. Brussel sprouts mmmmmmmmmaaaarrgghhh always taste the same. Opinions, as noted, tend to be varied.

"Examine the conclusion you reached about me based on a single post and recognise you are at least as guilty of what you accuse me as I am."

But I read thru each post on the various subjects (that interest me). Sometimes I agree with Rand. Sometimes I disagree with Brian. The author, IMO, is irrelevant to the substance of the post. Every now and then someone I profoundly disagree with on almost all matters has a nugget. I enjoy finding those.

"What conclusion would I reach if I went back through comments for the last month and checked your output here?"

I dunno. Try it out, let me know. You'd probably classify me as a troll (woo-hoo!), as I don't participate in the general sycophancy that goes on around here.

Interesting aside, I'm seeing more and more folks come out of the virtual woodwork here with more a more moderate outlook than the usual wingnuts. Glad to see it. Rand, YMMV.

Andy
"By judging a post by its author, you automatically reject the substance of the post."
I am NOT judging the post, I have already judged the author to be of no value to me. This is a matter of time management. I mentioned the two I did because I have concluded that they are broken records who keep repeating the same idea no matter what the subject is. in both cases this came after reading many posts by both, admittedly many less by Brian.

"Brussel sprouts mmmmmmmmmaaaarrgghhh always taste the same."
Absolutely FALSE.

"The author, IMO, is irrelevant to the substance of the post."
ROFLMAO Critical thinking wherefore art thou?

My second response to you has been confirmed.

Heh.

"I am NOT judging the post, I have already judged the author to be of no value to me."

Case in point.

"ROFLMAO Critical thinking wherefore art thou?"

Thinking being the operative term here. Stones and glass houses ad all that...

"My second response to you has been confirmed."

So, neither of our opinions of the other has changed in the slightest. Welcome to the asylum.

What gets me is people who are so used to on line chat that they actually say a word that sounds like "loll" or spell out L-O-L rather than laughing, when speaking to someone in person. It's just sad.

Rand, when does the cleaning begin. It's getting old trying to have a discussion when someone interjects:

"NASA Parkway is a federal highway project because it has 'NASA' in the name"

"Jerry Falwell has a tape of Hillary Clinton killing Vince Foster"

"Iraq is a US military defeat and Vietnam is a victory"

NASA Parkway is a federal highway project because it has 'NASA' in the name"

Posted by at May 11, 2007 07:08 PM

what idiot said that? I missed that.

Robert