Pet Peeves v. 5.0

[Keaton]

Lets hope so.

 

[cletus]

Oh dear, I need to get that stammer looked at. Wouldn't be so bad, but I know not to keep clicking the post button because it multi-posts.

*damn you*

 

[Keaton]

i definitely though that you did that on purpose...

 

[Fjones]

sigh... if you stop foaming at the mouth and pounding your keyboard in a frenzy, you might realise that i was actually kind of agreeing with you on that bit.

i'll reword it for you:

some drivers don't understand the dynamics of pedestrian crossings - like you said, some of them stop far too early, holding up the traffic behind them unnecessarily. some drivers screech to a halt at the last second, causing the traffic behind to also brake suddenly.

my point was that those two scenarios are not the fault of the rule itself (or pedestrians); it's because those drivers are dumbasses.

My fault. Yes, I see what you are saying. Many of these issues do boil down to erratic or unskilled drivers.

In general, I am all for politeness and courtesy on both sides, and if I can allow a pedestrian to cross without interrupting the flow of traffic or missing a light, I don't mind at all.

I could perhaps re-phrase my complaints to a couple of specific cases, since the law obviously isn't going to change anytime soon.


Within the spirit of the law, I think that some cars are overly obedient to the law, to the point where they yield to someone when the car can clearly proceed through and be out of the crosswalk before the person crosses. In that case, it has gone beyond being courteous or obeying the law; the driver is just slowing down traffic, similar to the drives who needlessly yield right of way in situations where no other driver expects it, including the driver having right of way yielded to, such that the only things accomplished is a traffic slowdown, confusion, and a possible accident

Second, I think that some give and take would be nice on the part of the pedestrians. For example, suppose a car or two are in a situation where proceeding through the crosswalk wilt allow them to make the next turn or light, whereas stopping for a pedestrian will cause them to miss it and have to sit for several minutes. Would it really be that difficult for the pedestrian to just let the car or two go through and then cross after the cars are clear? It takes the pedestrian a few extra seconds but saves the cars several minutes. Maybe the driver is in a hurry for something important.

 

[Fjones]

my pet peeve is people who post multiple posts in a row on the same topic instead of multi-quoting.

Okay, you got me on this one. My fault. My explanation (Though not a very good one) is that as I read the new posts, I click "reply" when I have something to say in a response to a post; then after I write the reply, I continue reading the new replies and see another reply on the same topic, which I reply to, and so on. Not realizing how many posts I will be replying to, I end up with several replies instead of a mufti quote.

 

[Fjones]

Fucck yea dude,
just gimme your address and ill send you your trophy.
Deliberately used the wrong form of your/you're just to peeve you

You lost me on this one. Among the numerous errors in grammar, misuse of "your" and "you're" doesn't appear to be one of them.

Was that the joke?

 

[Keaton]

nah im intentionally using poor grammer to bug you atm.
and i was so stoned when i wrote that post up der that i actually used the correct form of "your" by mistake.
I'm pretty loose with my grammar and spelling on Zinternet.. My school work looks much more better

 

[ThaiDie4]

I'm pretty divided on the debate of who should yield, drivers or pedestrians.

I go to college and I live right across the street from my campus, so I encounter a lot of traffic (both car and foot) during the weekdays.

It is really annoying when I am trying to walk from my apartment to class but I have to wait for a string of 10 cars to pass before one will stop and allow me to cross the road. This particular street has a 25 mph speed limit and has a few stop signs along the way, which means:

1) The cars are traveling at a pretty slow speed, but not slow enough to risk walking out in front of one.

2) The cars are rarely driving back-to-back... the stop signs cause traffic to stop and go in a manner that creates an annoying amount of distance between each car- not enough distance to have time to jump out between them once one car passes, but just enough distance that waiting for 10 cars to go by takes more than just a few seconds.

It irks me so bad when I'm running late for class (which yeah, I know is my own fault ) and I have to wait on all these cars because one person couldn't just have the courtesy to stop and let me cross.

On the other hand, driving down this road during "peak pedestrian" times (the times between class being let out and class starting) is just as annoying. There's always some asshole on their bike or skateboard speeding down the sidewalk that pops out in front of your car with no warning, scaring the shit out of you and causing you to brake suddenly. And it also sucks when you stop to let one or two people cross in front of you, and then this invites another pack to start crossing, then another, and you end up waiting there for 40 people to walk in front of you.... most of who do not even bother looking up from their iPhones to acknowledge that you are doing them a courtesy (even if it is the law).

Ultimately someones time has to be wasted I just try to be as polite as possible, while still thinking of the most efficient solution. If I'm driving and there is no one else on the road, I don't really stop for pedestrians approaching crosswalks because I know I'll whiz by them in a few seconds and then they'll be on their merry way. But when I see students (like me) trying to get to school I don't have a problem waiting on them to cross- after all, if you choose to live in a college town then you have to expect that there is going to be a lot of foot traffic near the campus.

 

[Assphace]

people who post pictures of their kids as their profile picture annoy the shit out of me

 

[CharlesTheHammer]

People who buy Pitbulls because they think it will make them look tough.

Or,

Men who buy trucks, then jack them way the hell into the air and put big mud tires on them, even though they never plan on taking the truck off road, just because they think it makes them look like "a big, tough guy"

My landlord's son has all of the above^ He named his two Pitbulls "Tank and Diesel". The fucked up thing is that Diesel is a girl! What a douche! He also tries to act tough all the time, mainly because he is about 5' 7", and obviously he feels he needs to over-compensate for his shortness by living the life of a tough guy....

Unfortunately, I have to tolerate all this nonsense because he is the landlord's son.

 

[silentangst]

 

[Damien]

^ The You're/Your Nazis are actually much more annoying to me. I barely ever even noticed it before other people started pointing it out. It's usually pretty easy to tell what someone meant from the context. Also, once you're a grammar nazi you'd better make sure your on you're "A "game at all times. Judge lest ye be judged and all that good stuff.

Okay, you got me on this one. My fault. My explanation (Though not a very good one) is that as I read the new posts, I click "reply" when I have something to say in a response to a post; then after I write the reply, I continue reading the new replies and see another reply on the same topic, which I reply to, and so on. Not realizing how many posts I will be replying to, I end up with several replies instead of a mufti quote.

Just try it. I find that once I'm staring at all my multi-quotes my thoughts come back to me on what I wanted to say in reply. Sometimes it will even give me some time to subconsciously put together a more coherent response (I think ).

 

[fizzle]

^+1 for multi-quote, it is a very useful tool that I wish more people would use!

 

[Fjones]

^ The You're/Your Nazis are actually much more annoying to me. I barely ever even noticed it before other people started pointing it out. It's usually pretty easy to tell what someone meant from the context. Also, once you're a grammar nazi you'd better make sure your on you're "A "game at all times. Judge lest ye be judged and all that good stuff.



Just try it. I find that once I'm staring at all my multi-quotes my thoughts come back to me on what I wanted to say in reply. Sometimes it will even give me some time to subconsciously put together a more coherent response (I think ).

^+1 for multi-quote, it is a very useful tool that I wish more people would use!

Eh. Multi-quoting is for losers ......

 

[Fjones]

^ The You're/Your Nazis are actually much more annoying to me. I barely ever even noticed it before other people started pointing it out. It's usually pretty easy to tell what someone meant from the context. Also, once you're a grammar nazi you'd better make sure your on you're "A "game at all times. Judge lest ye be judged and all that good stuff.

On one hand, I think some people have raised a valid point in this thread regarding the complexity of the English Language. We have too many exceptions, irregular words and forms, and so on. And I don't understand why we have so many homonyms and homophones, both of which seem to be the cause of many of the grammar issues that plague people.

But I cannot agree with you about your / you're. This is NOT the fault of the English language. This is NOT a case of two words sounding alike but being spelled differently. "You're" is not a word, and writing "you're" instead of "your" in a sentence amounts to a misspelling of a word most people learn by the second grade. There is no reason to every use "you're," and if one never did, he wouldn't have to worry about using the right form of your/you're, since there is actually only one word pronounced "your."

I don't think it is unreasonable for English speakers to learn how the apostrophe works.

 

[Damien]

^ I agree, I just think it's annoying to see people pointing it out. Wow, you can spell to the second grade level! Here's a cookie. The people that don't spell the words correctly probably don't care by this point and pointing it out doesn't really accomplish much except for making someone feel great about being able to spell with the competency of a second grader.

Good job on the mult-quote. kinda. lol

 

[cletus]

you'd better make sure your on you're "A "game at all times.

"Oh, a wise guy, eh? nyuk, nyuk, nyuk."

It really does not bother me in the slightest that people get it wrong. There are much worse crimes than being a shit spellerer.

 

[voxmystic]

It's especially irritating when bookish types act like non-spellers are just stupid. They may be incredibly talented mechanically, or artistically, or some other area far removed from grammar. As talents go, spelling is kinda lame.

 

[AmorRoark]

It's actually a grammar issue rather than a spelling issue.

/hangs self

 

[Damien]

You think so? I think it would be a grammar issue if the person didn't understand what they were trying to say.

I mean the perpetrator probably knows that they are trying to say "You are" or "your" but they are just spelling it wrong. Does that make sense?