Japan Cripples the USA's fleet. USSR next?

iddt3

Donor
It's not a matter of the Siberian troop myth being repeated yet again. Hell, Max Sinister who has been for here for over 1000 posts and should know better did that. It's not even a matter of not knowing the Siberian troop transfers were a myth. Instead, it's a matter of not even bothering to read the fucking thread you're posting in.

There were all of 21 posts in this thread before Bytewave posted. If he'd even bothered to read the first six posts he would have learned about the Siberian troop myth and seen the link Wiking kindly provided. Apparently expecting people to read the fucking thread they're responding too is too much. :rolleyes:

This thread is a poster child for AH.Com's Bad Habits. Wilmatron, a lopng time member, not only starts a thread on a "Done to Death" topic, but he does so when there was still an active Page 1 thread on the same topic. Then Max, another long term member, repeats a myth which has been refuted so often it should have it's own Sealion-type sticky. Then Bytewave comes and can't even be fucking bothered to read the first six posts of the threads he is respondimg to.

It's absolutely maddening.

I think someone needs a hug. *hugs* Don't flame the newbs, they'll never learn reading comprehension if you do. Plus this one actually apologized.
 
It's not a matter of the Siberian troop myth being repeated yet again. Hell, Max Sinister, who has been for here for over 1000 posts and should know better, did that. It's not even a matter of not knowing the Siberian troop transfers were a myth. Instead, it's a matter of not even bothering to read the fucking thread you're posting in.

There were all of 21 posts in this thread before Bytewave posted. If he'd even bothered to read the first six posts he would have learned about the Siberian troop myth and seen the link Wiking kindly provided. Apparently expecting people to read the fucking thread they're responding to is too much. :rolleyes:

This thread is a poster child for AH.Com's Bad Habits. Wilmatron, a long time member, not only starts a thread on a "Done to Death" topic, but he does so when there was still an active Page 1 thread on the same topic. Then Max, another long term member, repeats a myth which has been refuted so often it should have it's own Sealion-type sticky. Then Bytewave comes and can't even be fucking bothered to read the first six posts of the threads he is responding to.

It's absolutely maddening.

Apparently, 48 hours isn't enough to let you cool down. I'm thus going to have to put you on my ignore list as you are clearly not behaving reasonably. I am thus also forced to withdraw my previous apology and conciliatory tone; there is no global netiquette that requires that people read everything that has been posted in a thread before they comment on it; the only global expectation is reasonable comprehension of the original post and any article it links to! Reading previous comments can often be enlightening, and I try to usually, but I've never seen a forum where reading everything before contributing is a rule, much less one where no mistake is tolerated! The point of threads are that everyone expresses an opinion on the -original- post. Generally, this does entail having a general interest in other opinions expressed to date, but reading every single post should in no way be an absolute requirement, lest older threads be guaranteed a swift death under their own weight, and new contributors being forced to shoulder an unreasonable burden. For a new member to a well-established site such as this one, the overwhelming volume of interesting content means that there's only so many posts that are going to get read (And I'm feeling overwhelmed alright!) In this case, I'm more than willing to say that I read diagonally the contents of the thread before posting, but I made a sincere effort to post something that was thoughtful, to the best of my ability. I believe my due diligence was amply done, and that I must withdraw prior apologies now that they have been clearly rejected.

This website is overwhelming in many ways. On one hand, its incredibly interesting and outstanding to someone like me with a general interest in history, but on the other, the sheer volume of things to read means I can't, nor intend to try, to read every single post in every thread I have an interest in. I'm not ashamed to point out outright that I'm absolutely cherrypicking and reading diagonally; there's just too much stuff! So I'm reading diagonally, because it's neccessary to catch up with millions of words of interesting content, and because there's nothing wrong with that. This is the internet. The only obligations posters on forums have towards each other are civility and a real attempt at good will. As long as my effort to learn and contribute is positive and sincere, and it is, I believe I'm entitled to mistakes and shortcuts and I will defend that against anyone else who displays unreasonable expectations or total lack of manners. New members to a public community have no reason to stand for rudeness nor undue harassment; "N00bs" are any community's lifeblood and their best hope for further expansion.

This being written, I still think this is a very promising forum and I want to positively contribute further. I'll draw a line at undue rudeness, but for all others, thank you for your welcome and input. I've already learned from this community and hope to contribute in turn in coming months!
 

gaijin

Banned
I respectfully have to agree with Flubber. This is a discussion board. If people don't read previous posts, there is no way you can have a normal discussion. Conversations require listening as much as talking. Discussions on a board like this require reading as much as posting.
 
I respectfully have to agree with Flubber. This is a discussion board. If people don't read previous posts, there is no way you can have a normal discussion. Conversations require listening as much as talking. Discussions on a board like this require reading as much as posting.

Besides what gaijin said, I would add the following on this issue specifically and my own thoughts:

The reasonable thing to expect for those of us following the thread from the beginning would be that anyone intent on making comments on "Siberian troop movements" would be to see if anyone had said what they were going to say first.

So no, due diligence was not done, because if the issue is avoid making an already long thread overly long, then one has an obligation to see if an issue one wishes to comment on has already been mentioned and discussed - if it has, repeating what X user said doesn't add anything to the thread for any of us except more words.

Does this mean that at times one is going to feel overwhelmed? Yes. There's a reason I rarely comment in threads that have become enormously long - keeping up with them enough to follow this is a lot of work, and there's only so many subjects that are worth that much effort.

But in the case of threads this short, and threads where the relevant posts Flubber is complaining so bitterly about Bytewave having not read are at the very beginning - not buried somewhere in the middle of the thread - it is entirely reasonable to expect the full thread to be read in the interests of the above.

Now, that doesn't mean You Must Do It Or Forever Know Only Shame. But it is unreasonable on the part of a commenter to protest that there was too much to read in these circumstances for the reasons above.

I don't mind newbies. I'm a relative newbie here myself. But there's a huge gap between "I'm new" and "I'm a lost cause". New people owe it to the forum and themselves to act in a way in which their presence is a gain to the site.

And I'm willing to believe Bytewave is capable of acting in such a way and willing to do that.

But he(?) needs to act accordingly.

Just some thoughts to chew on and hopefully digest.
 
Flubber said:
It's not a matter of the Siberian troop myth being repeated yet again. <snip>
With the rest of this, I entirely agree. Nor am I defending that part of it.

However... What happens if somebody simply overlooks the pivotal post? I've been known to skim & miss things...
Bytewave said:
there is no global netiquette that requires that people read everything that has been posted in a thread before they comment on it; the only global expectation is reasonable comprehension of the original post and any article it links to! Reading previous comments can often be enlightening, and I try to usually, but I've never seen a forum where reading everything before contributing is a rule
Not a rule, but an extremely good idea here. Patience with repetition is pretty low. Besides, IMO the various views are often the more fun part.:eek::p (It's often possible to glance at the posts to see if they're substantive or "passing", & speed up the process.)
 
Last edited:
With the rest of this, I entirely agree. Nor am I defending that part of it.

However... What happens if somebody simply overlooks the pivotal post? I've been known to skim & miss things...

Speaking for myself, the proper sequence:

Annoyed poster: Someone already said X!

Other Poster: Oops, missed that.

Annoyed poster: 'tis okay, everyone makes mistakes.

Other poster: So, about (point that -hasn't- been said before).

Annoyed poster: (response)


Roughly.
 
Elfwine said:
Speaking for myself, the proper sequence:

Annoyed poster: Someone already said X!

Other Poster: Oops, missed that.

Annoyed poster: 'tis okay, everyone makes mistakes.

Other poster: So, about (point that -hasn't- been said before).

Annoyed poster: (response)


Roughly.
Accepting the degree of annoyance is YMMV,:p I'd say that should be how it goes, too.;) It ain't necessarily so, sadly.:(
 
Accepting the degree of annoyance is YMMV,:p I'd say that should be how it goes, too.;) It ain't necessarily so, sadly.:(

Yeah. It's there to illustrate how once the mistake maker gets it, the important point is for everyone to move on because everyone makes mistakes now and then.

Dwelling on "you idiot" doesn't benefit anyone. Especially with innocent errors.

As distinct from the DGs of the world, who cling to error.
 
Elfwine said:
Yeah. It's there to illustrate how once the mistake maker gets it, the important point is for everyone to move on because everyone makes mistakes now and then.

Dwelling on "you idiot" doesn't benefit anyone. Especially with innocent errors.

As distinct from the DGs of the world, who cling to error.
Agreed.

Then there's the trolls who start whole threads just to cause trouble...:rolleyes:

Them, I'd ban in a second.:mad:

That said, since we're derailing things a bit, let me ask if anybody else has thoughts on the actual subject of the OP?:p
 
Top