How to rant properly in DD

Achilles7

Banned
Achilles7
taotoo said:
Additionally I prefer that:

If possible it be an "open letter to the dev's" (apostrophe mandatory).

It start with (in bold) "Mods: please do NOT move this to the suggestions forum".
Click to expand...

Yeah, the apostrophe is mandatory because it's grammatically correct! D'oh! Inept sarcasm neutralised.

EDIT: & while I'm at it...on to the OP; hmmm, the self-awareness is weak in this one. Oy vey...'where to begin?

Well firstly, it was good of you to provide a first-rate example of a bitter, passive-aggressive rant for our delectation & edification, but you forgot to explicitly mention one of the golden rules ie."use similar but ultimately, incorrect words in place of the grammatically correct ones"...à la Del Boy; for example, confusing "inferred" with "implied".

Ahhh, my mistake, you subtly implied the advocacy of this technique through demonstration (more than once, in fact [big grin]) in your clunky & unfunny post - aimed squarely at the affirmation of the resident obsequious, 'white-knighting fanboys' (I aim to please[big grin][big grin])! This of course, gives the reader an insight into the low intellect behind the rabid, flailing composition leading to much hilarity & indeed, a credibility vacuum going forward for any future contributions.

...otherwise, the OP is indeed the "crème de la menthe" of all rep-hunting, anti-rant rants. Hence, welcome to my 'never-ever ignore list' - why? Yes, that's right, I simply enjoy a good laugh at incompetence.
 
Last edited:

M00ka

M00ka
Achilles7 said:
Yeah, the apostrophe is mandatory because it's grammatically correct! D'oh! Inept sarcasm neutralised.

EDIT: & while I'm at it...on to the OP; hmmm, the self-awareness is weak in this one. Oy vey...'where to begin?

Well firstly, it was good of you to provide a first-rate example of a bitter, passive-aggressive rant for our delectation & edification, but you forgot to explicitly mention one of the golden rules ie."use similar but ultimately, incorrect words in place of the grammatically correct ones"...à la Del Boy; for example, confusing "inferred" with "implied".

Ahhh, my mistake, you subtly implied the advocacy of this technique through demonstration (more than once, in fact [big grin]) in your clunky & unfunny post - aimed squarely at the affirmation of the resident obsequious, 'white-knighting fanboys' (I aim to please[big grin][big grin])! This of course, gives the reader an insight into the low intellect behind the rabid, flailing composition leading to much hilarity & indeed, a credibility vacuum going forward for any future contributions.

...otherwise, the OP is indeed the "crème de la menthe" of all rep-hunting, anti-rant rants. Hence, welcome to my 'never-ever ignore list' - why? Yes, that's right, I simply enjoy a good laugh at incompetence.
Click to expand...

Awwwwwwwwwww sorry I upset you, will you be my friend :D
 

Siobhan

Siobhan
I think the tone of a rant is spoiled by the use of any punctuation or grammatical tools, or even multi-syllabic words whatsoever. If it doesn't look like it was written by a two-year-old then really, what's the point?

Also, any proper rant should emphasise the ranter's vast experience, having of course been there when DB and IB came up with the concept back in the early '80s and told them then that this problem would be the result. It should also mention that the game is called Elite: Dangerous and therefore whatever the rant is about is doubly true.
 

Smaste

S
Siobhan said:
I think the tone of a rant is spoiled by the use of any punctuation or grammatical tools, or even multi-syllabic words whatsoever. If it doesn't look like it was written by a two-year-old then really, what's the point?

Also, any proper rant should emphasise the ranter's vast experience, having of course been there when DB and IB came up with the concept back in the early '80s and told them then that this problem would be the result. It should also mention that the game is called Elite: Dangerous and therefore whatever the rant is about is doubly true.
Click to expand...
you know this goes both ways right? lol
 

Siobhan

Siobhan
Ethaidan said:
Well those type of people are simple-minded amateurs at best! If it's not a spaghetti-junction spray'n pray style rant with multiple loosely related tangents, is not even worth responding to.
Click to expand...

Taking that one step further, I suppose, a professional and experienced ranter could go off on so many tangents that they end up arguing with themselves, eventually each separate tangent nullifying the points brought up by the others and negating any requirement for anyone else to respond. The whole thread could be wrapped up neatly in a single post which the mods could then lock. All very tidy.
 
Last edited:

M00ka

M00ka
Siobhan said:
Most people only rant in one direction. If it went both ways, it wouldn't be a rant.

Or are you reading something into my comment that wasn't actually there?
Click to expand...

Very true Commander, a true rant is only one direction, one opinion, one goal. The expert rantor will be focused solely on their opinion, any other opinion no matter how valid, how true will be dismissed with increasing distain. If the rantor allows alternative opinions to enter his or her rant, then the rant descends into the hell of hells, a discussion - and that cannot be allowed to happen.
 

Julio Montega

Julio Montega
Dear OP you forgot to include valued statistics in your manual,
2,8% of the base forumites already can write decent rants.

2,8% is the new 42.
 

Auronio

Auronio
Julio Montega said:
Dear OP you forgot to include valued statistics in your manual,
2,8% of the base forumites already can write decent rants.

2,8% is the new 42.
Click to expand...

LOL

M00ka said:
Very true Commander, a true rant is only one direction, one opinion, one goal. The expert rantor will be focused solely on their opinion, any other opinion no matter how valid, how true will be dismissed with increasing distain. If the rantor allows alternative opinions to enter his or her rant, then the rant descends into the hell of hells, a discussion - and that cannot be allowed to happen.
Click to expand...

And LOL.

Siobhan said:
Most people only rant in one direction. If it went both ways, it wouldn't be a rant.

Or are you reading something into my comment that wasn't actually there?
Click to expand...

And another LOL.

Very entertaining this thread.

Unfortunately I must deliver some superconductors and wipe some unfortunate pirate lords now, but I'm sure you won't miss me.
o7 and have fun!
;)
 

Tarman

Tarman
Achilles7 said:
I see the quality of your repartee hasn't diminished.
Click to expand...

It's certainly better than yours! :D

Post 61 was pretty weak on comedy, and seems to have more of a genuine thin-skinned "nu-uh you are" attitude to it than the assumed tomfoolery of the rest of the thread.
 

Smaste

S
Siobhan said:
Most people only rant in one direction. If it went both ways, it wouldn't be a rant.

Or are you reading something into my comment that wasn't actually there?
Click to expand...
Not reading into it just going off of what's there, specifically the "Elite: Dangerous" part. I think we can both agree that the erm... aptitude of many on both sides of whatever argument is ...sometimes questionable.
 

Siobhan

Siobhan
Julio Montega said:
Dear OP you forgot to include valued statistics in your manual,
2,8% of the base forumites already can write decent rants.

2,8% is the new 42.
Click to expand...

Not just the OP! We're over 75 posts in and you're the first to bring it up.

Of course it need not be 2.8% nor 42. Such numbers change over time and this is meant to advise into the far future... Or at least 'til its forgotten. Perhaps set an alarm to necro the thread once a year...
 

M00ka

M00ka
Julio Montega said:
Dear OP you forgot to include valued statistics in your manual,
2,8% of the base forumites already can write decent rants.

2,8% is the new 42.
Click to expand...

I will admit I did consider the now infamous 2.8% moniker in my guide, but after a little consideration decided to omit it. My thoughts is knowing how FD operates, it won't be long before they make another announcement containing yet another percentage quoted which will create yet another wave of comments demanding confirmation and access to the raw data for 'clarification'. So the now popular 2.8% might only be in vogue for a few weeks at the most which kind of defeats the purpose of the guide.

I do thank you for the reminder though, I should have mentioned something about percentages in my original post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom