| Submit your comments on this article |
| Quick note on posting |
| 2004-09-18 |
| A few gentle reminders: 1) you must include a working link in the source line. I'm deleting posts that don't have this -- I don't have the time to look for the original. 2) your comments should be highlighted and preferably on a separate line. If you want to snark in the middle of a paragraph, use the strike function, not hilite. Or break the paragaph. 3) we don't need the original publication date, correspondent's name, and other header stuff in the body of your post. Just takes up bandwidth and load time. T'anks! |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #24 Different damned link anyway! |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-09-18 4:28:33 PM |
| #23 Dr Steve - No - I was laughing while I typed it. Though I do like have that info in my visual scan, no sweat. Hell, I'll stand on my head while typing - if that's what it takes! And let me toss in how much I appreciate you Editors - and you in particular. Seems you pull the nasty shift, when there's still a buncha us late-night loonies wanting to stuff the next day's ballot-box! I dearly appreciate your efforts - you've fixed stuff and turned loose netted posts - and who knows what else! T H A N X !!! Ya rock, Doc! Now get some sleep! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-09-18 4:28:07 PM |
| #22 God, Bulldog, missed your post - apologies. Will stop flying around and messing up posts... back to work! BTW - I touched the otter's nose last night |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-09-18 4:27:32 PM |
| #21 Phrase for the day: w*nk spanners. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-09-18 4:23:26 PM |
| #20 .com, big guy, I hear ya, I was getting all grumpy 'cause once again I was going through the holding tank at 11:59 PM EDT trying to figure out what was there, what had already been posted, where's the fricking link to this one, and good golly miss molly what's with the 15 lines of non-essential stuff in that one? So my bad if anyone was offended. Fred's the boss and I'll always do it his way. Bulldog: thanks for the Roger's Profanisaurus tip. That will keep me busy (not to mention better, um, educated) for quite a while! |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-09-18 4:20:59 PM |
| #19 .com: Try this for an insightful guide into the latest Brit slang The Profanisaurus BTW... 'The Mutt's Nuts' is fine and in common parlance in my part of the world. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-09-18 4:16:58 PM |
| #18 I'm standing four square for what's right. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-09-18 2:49:59 PM |
| #17 BD - Well, don't blame these guys for my screwups! I whacked it out in about 7-8 minutes so it's not like I went deep, lol! The lameness is mine! Thanks for the link - I definitely like yours better: air biscuit -- that's simply awesome! As for the def you proferred, lol, it works for me. To be honest - I don't read those threads, anymore. They are dead the moment they are "claimed" for that day's stage / soapbox. Thanks for the link - I'll study longer before I attempt my next reposte! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-09-18 2:49:16 PM |
| #16 .com, no bad attempt! But a little bit off the mark in places. 'Arse over elbow' whould more commonly be 'arse over tit'. 'In a nark' is OK, but not slang flavour of the month, if you know what I mean. 'Mutt's nuts' is a new one on me, I must admit; 'Dog's b*llocks' is the more familiar equivalent. 'Sixes and sevens'? Quaint. 'Wind up' and 'codswallop' are both good though. What's your source? I can have a look if you like and see if someone's leading you up the garden path. Meanwhile, I recommend Roger's Profanisaurus for all your less polite Brit slang. For example (this is a new one to me): "aris n. Convoluted cockney rhyming slang for arse. From Aristotle - bottle - bottle and 'glarse' - arse." |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-09-18 2:35:07 PM |
| #15 Aw - I was trying out a Brit slang dictionary - did I screw it up? Shit. Sorry, bro! I thought I was having ya on. Okay, I'll stick to what I know, henceforth. "Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood." Should've know better. Grins. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-09-18 2:13:49 PM |
| #14 .com did you iron that shirt? That collar looks crumpled. I'm gonna tell Fred. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-09-18 2:05:22 PM |
| #13 mojo - Ya really should read the post before you reply, heh. Note: "HOVER". Toddle off, wanker! I'm in my limey cups, at the moment. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-09-18 2:02:47 PM |
| #12 But I don't hafta to take shit from you, BD! Scruffy, indeed! Ya didn't hafta go arse over elbow on it. Wotta load o' codswallop! Yer just in a nark, playing up to the boss trying to be the mutt's nuts! Sixes and sevens, indeed! Such a wind up! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-09-18 2:00:37 PM |
| #11 So touch the freakin' link and read your status bar, DC... |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-09-18 1:55:46 PM |
| #10 I'm with Fred 'n' Steve White. We should try to cut posts down to the essentials anyway. Adding less than relevant information as standard defeats that object and makes reading Rantburg that little bit less time-saving. If it's a dodgy source or author, or old, then maybe it's worth noting. But personally I don't want to see the source's origin, date, time, location, author's middle name, local weather, etc. every time... It also make the posting process longer for the poster. There's also a formatting issue. People adding their own fancy leader in their own style makes Rantburg look scruffy. ;) |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-09-18 1:45:56 PM |
| #9 Lol! Oops - I think I was just bitch-slapped! Okay, I'll be good, I promise! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-09-18 1:36:57 PM |
| #8 LOL - agree on the links, of course, and as always, common sense is welcome. Suggested troll cleanup: perhaps a script that detects Boris's POS web page link could filter him out automatically? I notice his IP keeps changing |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-09-18 11:33:01 AM |
| #7 Fred's, of course, is the final word on the subject. Though I'm sure that won't stop other words (including mine). :-p Fred, I think we've discussed this before, and maybe it's already there and I missed seeing it, but could we have a link at the top (near the "post your own article" link) to a page giving basic posting instructions such as these? No need to thank me - always happy to create more work for you and the other eds. ;-p |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-09-18 11:22:12 AM |
| #6 I think in most cases the date and time aren't important, nor is the byline. The exceptions are antique articles or those written before the event occurred -- they let you know you're reading either history or bullship, depending. The byline exceptions are Fisk, Steyn, O'Rourke, VDH and others we look for, or Arab names reporting for Rooters, AP or AFP. Add them only to draw attention to them, otherwise they're readily available at the link. I think these are common sense exceptions. 100 percent agree on the links. I hate dumping articles, but we've had quite a few lately without sources, and unless I give up sleeping I don't have enough available hours to go chasing them, even for good articles. The other eds don't, either, and even if they did, the time could be better spent posting or snarking. |
| Posted by: Fred 2004-09-18 11:08:28 AM |
| #5 Steve, I do sort of agree with them. Source and date of publication save clicking time, and author's name can be important (depending on who it is). I'll confess that I often don't go to the link, depending on who did the posting, what they said, and whether I have the time (or inclination) to "read the rest." But it's NOT my blog, so that's just one opinion. [And a not very humble one at that. :-p] Y'all do the heavy lifting, so we should defer to your desires. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-09-18 10:53:44 AM |
| #4 ok IMNSHO only :-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-09-18 10:50:08 AM |
| #3 Frank G: "IMHO only" "H"? C'mon, Frank, don't put yourself down like that. ;-p |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-09-18 10:48:11 AM |
| #2 I'm with .com if the author's name, date etc. add something necessary to the appreciation of the article. If it's a Rob't Fisk POS, you can only appreciate it given that note, otherwise it's just another hackneyed bit of tripe by another Islamo-loving anti-western idiot. Dating the article - showing it was written before the event (a la Louis Lapham's coverage of the Rep Convention) can also add that shiv in the back of the authors' credibility. IMHO only |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-09-18 10:40:45 AM |
| #1 *eye roll* Re: item 3, I dissent. Hover only tells you source - this info saves time opening stories by shit-brained moonbat reporters or stale stories, IMHO. 2 short lines of text is a BW problem? Really? You're getting mighty persnickety! And crotchety, too! Making excuses for the lazy posters - sniff - okay, who bought you off, huh? Prolly that Dan guy or that Mike S guy, I betcha! Sheeshy sort of sigh. Did I mention crotchety? Gotta stay out of those crotch thingys, y'know. They'll make you do and say crazy things! Such as item 3... or worse! *Steady Steely Unblinking Unwavering Uncowed and Unbowed GAZE* *snicker* :-) |
| Posted by: .com 2004-09-18 4:58:52 AM |