Aceflyer

Hahaha nice.

No wonder you find them entertaining, then. I get like 25 a day on some of my current emails.

Eh? The content - a not insignificant amount of content, either - is already there. People want it removed. It was felt that the reasonable thing to do was to put this to a vote to confirm that a clear majority wanted the content removed.

I think the unanimous results are pretty clear. Let's give this another day or two and unless we get a deluge of 'no's' then we will be changing the Abbreviations page shortly (i.e. removing all abbreviations not unique to Continuum).

Ah, nice. In that case, keep me posted.

That'd be brilliant D1!

Forgive me, but didn't the last planned 17th event flop somewhat badly?

Unless you've recently seriously attempted to set a new zone up, you wouldn't understand the importance SSM had.

Same. From my POV this thread belongs in Trash Talk.

Sorry to hear you've stopped hosting SSM. SSM was the primary non-SSC server that was open after Confess+'s SST closed down, and SSM really helped a lot of new and dev zones have a host. I appreciate your efforts and expenses in hosting SSM, and I am sure my appreciation is shared by many in the community. Hope to see it up again in the future.

You must not get many of them then. Because rather soon the 1,000,000th spam email gets really annoying.

Honestly I thought Father Maiden Name was funnier.

All of the above = unsupported speculation. Your at!@#$%^&*ude toward zone staff aside, you apparently completely missed the point of my analogy. Oh well, just disregard the analogy then. That isn't supporting evidence unless you provide evidence that the US told Maliki to do what he did. Currently all the evidence shows is Maliki rushed off and tried something and failed, and the US ended up having to back him up out of necessity (it was either that or allow Maliki's government to destabilize). On the contrary, I didn't speculate anything. I first claimed the US was willing to negotiate with al-Sadr. You disagreed and asked for proof. I then provided quotes from Petraeus that showed that the US was, in fact, willing to negotiate with al-Sadr (overtures that were rebuffed by al-Sadr). You then stated that Petraeus' statements were inaccurate. I then asked for proof from you to back your claim up. You then gave me no facts, but did give me a bunch of speculation/reasoning based on your interpretation of US neocon at!@#$%^&*udes and your interpretation of the US administration's thought processes and motives. What I have been saying all along is that we have to accept Petraeus' statements to the US Congress as factual unless we are presented with statements from the administration to the contrary. I have never claimed that Petraeus can't be overruled by President Bush; rather, I have said that there is no proof that President Bush has overruled Petraeus (and in the absence of such proof, we have to accept Petraeus' statements to the US Congress as fact). When have I ever said anything to the contrary? In my last post, for example, I specifically made reference to Karl Rove's strategic genius. President Bush obviously had brilliant people working for him. Having brilliant people work for him does not guarantee competence in an untraditional conflict like the current Iraq situation.

The spelling and capitalization errors in the email sorta gave it away.

Thanks! I used to know about the F4 spectator thing, but later forgot and couldn't find out what it was again.

But has President Bush ever overruled Petraeus' statements (that we know of)? If not, we have to assume Petraeus' statements are accurate. To draw an analogy with a generic Continuum zone: the zone owner(s) ultimately decide(s) zone policy, but we generally assume statements made by the system operator(s) of that zone concerning zone policy are accurate unless overruled by the zone owner(s). Just because Lieberman's opinions are often closer to the Administration's than Petraeus' are does not mean anything. We still have to assume Petraeus' statements are accurate unless we have convincing evidence to the contrary. You still haven't presented this evidence, by the way. On the contrary, I do not need to provide you with any alternative explanation. You were the one who is claiming that Petraeus' statements were false; you need to provide proof for your claims - note, solid proof, not speculation or reasoning. As far as the way Iraq was fought: yes, there was incompetence. Just because President Bush was able to get reelected handily doesn't necessarily mean he knows how to best handle something like the war in Iraq. His reelection had more to do with Karl Rove's strategic genius, conservative voters who were chiefly concerned about domestic conservative issues (such as abortion and the other old hat stuff), and John Kerry's strategic incompetence than anything. In any case, this is irrelevant.

I'm with Sama on this. GetContinuum.com, for instance, has a lot of resources that would be helpful to someone just starting out.

Not being repe!@#$%^&*ive, just being accurate and trying to restate key points.

Agreed.

Nope, I wasn't the one who wrote that. I had !@#$%^&*umed PoLiX did, since he contributed most of the content to that page and locked it early on so that not even Wiki Mods can edit it. Yeah, much of that site really needs to be updated, as previous posters in this thread have already pointed out. Don't get me wrong, it's an invaluable cornerstone of the Continuum community, but it's still out of date.

Ah, I see that now. Had to clear cache on my browser. Thanks Hakaku!

Official? How is it official in any way? According to SSWiki, the Subspace Continuum Wikipedia: mm? I still don't see a link to GetContinuum.com anywhere in the nav bar... nor do I notice any changes to it, for that matter...

Poll is up, go vote!

This is your chance to speak up and make your opinion heard! Vote in this poll to help decide whether the SSWiki Abbreviations page should only contain abbreviations unique to Continuum (such as "anch"), or if the content currently there on the page (which includes commonly used online abbreviations like "bbiab" and "tyvm") is fine. Your votes will directly determine policy for this page, so make yourself heard! Vote!

Those aren't abbreviations. They are just bad language, which some zones happen to ban. The content currently there is content that is legal throughout Continuum, to the best of my knowledge. SSWiki wouldn't want to 'sponsor', effectively, terms that are illegal to use in some SSC zones. The terms currently there are frequently - very very frequently - used in Continuum, and hence can be said to be related to the game and the gameplay. Still, why not make a vote?