Contest: Bunch of worlds most annoying nitpickers in web discussion

Hi,

here is my favourite.
Look at the comments.
http://www.thinkvitamin.com/features/ajax/create-your-own-ajax-effects
Thomas Fuchs (most visible man behind fluxiom and script.aculo.us library) has published a tutorial.
Discussion starts normal, but then nitpickers turn more & more crazy (from my pov).
nitpicker: But its not Ajax. Ajax is with xml remoting.
Thomas Fuchs: Yes. But it supports Ajax features.
nitpicker2: Its aj and half of the x of ajax. But no A. And other half of the x also missing.
Thomas Fuchs: Yes. But it supports Ajax features.
nitpicker3: Its not ajax. This confuses the message of our movement.
Thomas Fuchs: Yes. But such discussion leads nowhere. Please don't take it personally.

You know thread with more annoying nit-pickers?

[ April 20, 2006: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

I know this is not supposed to be about that discussion, but just want to put in my two cents.

There are a lot of people that are putting the label Ajax on stuff since it *could* be used with it. I really agree if you are not using the XMLHttpRequest Object then it should not have anything to do with Ajax. Call it that Web 2.0 stuff I hate to hear. To me anything that deals with effectis is going back to 1999.

I am read to hear the nitpickers when I do my first major talk out in San Jose on Monday. I am one of those guys that goes accross the grain with a lot of the main stream people. I guess that is why I am not on any panel discussions. LOL

I had a discussion the other day on another forum with the new patch for IE that causes that alert to show up for objects such as media player and flash. People were calling this an error and it is not an error. It is the way it is meant to work. LOL

Eric