Determining How an Accident Occurred

A carA comes out of a side road turning left onto a road with 2 lanes each way. A carB coming from the left in the leftmost lane hits carA from the wheel well to the driver's seat. So the question is, is it possible for carA to wind up right back at it's starting point?

There aren't any witnesses, but this puzzle would answer a lot of important questions. Thank you so much for any thoughts!!

Details:
It's a 45mph road. CarA winds up somewhat parallel to the side road, sitting in front of it. The front of carA is closest to the side road lane it came from. There's about a 30 degree angle between the front of carA and that side road, so it landed not quite parallel. CarB is an suv & carA is a compact sedan (not subcompact). CarB is slightly more crushed on it's left front. CarA was most crushed in the driver's seat. CarA was probably already angled some amount as it was heading into the lanes on the other side of the road. Also importantly had moved a little to the left as it aimed to turn left. The two lane road intersects with the side road at not completely a right angle. The side road comes in a very small angle from the left. When hit, the carA spun to the right. As a lay person, I'd expect that the force would push the car at least a little bit further down the road?

It would in part depend on how the wheels were turned.

Quote:

---

Quoting aquestioner

---

There aren't any witnesses

---

There were two drivers... What are their version(s) of what happened and why can't that be used to answer your questions?

Quote:

---

Quoting aquestioner

---

this puzzle would answer a lot of important questions.

---

Maybe knowing what those questions are would likely lead to a better more qualified answer.

Without knowing what the intent of your inquiry, I am tempted to say "what difference does it make if it is abundantly clear that CarA failed to yield to CarB". And as far as most automobile collisions are concerned, that is typically the ONLY question that needs to be answered.

Also, failing to specify which state this is in is likely to lead to a "well, you should have said so from the beginning"...

Quote:

---

Quoting Disagreeable

---

It would in part depend on how the wheels were turned.

---

If you can give any variation where carA would land that way, that would be helpful to hear.

the answer is always yes.


You can always create a scenario that will result in what you want.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

There were two drivers... What are their version(s) of what happened and why can't that be used to answer your questions?

---

In order to preserve identity, I've added only the info that's important.

This isn't a question of law so the state doesn't matter.

It's much more likely carB failed to follow traffic law in this case. The drivers aren't able to witness in this case & this lack of good info is a problem.

If it can be ruled in that carA could land that way, it would make a difference to the case. If it can be ruled out that carA could not land that way it too would make a difference.

I'm sorry to be so obscure, and it would be more fun to post the whole story -- but it really is more responsible for me to stick to only what's needed.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

the answer is always yes.


You can always create a scenario that will result in what you want.

---

Within the laws of physics, is this possible? I'm trying to figure this out from a physically possible perspective. I saw some great answers in this forum to other questions, figuring this kind of thing out -- so I'm hoping someone can give me an idea.

If it in part depends on which way the wheels are turned, what are your thoughts?


(I have no idea why the forum is insisting I add both answers into the same post.)

there are so many variables that would have to be taken into consideration as well as an on site investigation to be able to determine what happened, attempting to get an answer on a forum isn't really going to do much for you.


If you have access to the site, or better yet, had a chance to review the actual scene, or at least pictures, skid marks should be very telling.

if have pics or a good drawing of the evidence on the scene, maybe posting them to a image hosting site and providing a link might allow a review that might give you a better response.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

there are so many variables that would have to be taken into consideration as well as an on site investigation to be able to determine what happened, attempting to get an answer on a forum isn't really going to do much for you.


If you have access to the site, or better yet, had a chance to review the actual scene, or at least pictures, skid marks should be very telling.

if have pics or a good drawing of the evidence on the scene, maybe posting them to a image hosting site and providing a link might allow a review that might give you a better response.

---

jd- so true skid marks would be very telling. So would pictures at the scene. Other than the end location of the cars, one of which I described (and I don't have the pictures) -- the police did not collect anything. There weren't any skid marks (due to weather) I've been told.

I was thinking that someone who does reconstruction or is familar with it, might easily be able to say "yes I've known of that happening (car landing where it started)" or "no way, has to travel a little down the road at least 10 feet..."

I'm hoping the forum will help, if someone has good info on how cars land. Ultimately, it will be up to the lawyers involved on whether to hire someone professional to work it out. Again, I'm leaving off the reasons why this matters and what it impacts --to keep identifiers down.

I'm probably not going to be much help but...


where did B end up?

how do you know A spun to the right?

was the road wet? or snowy?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I'm probably not going to be much help but...


where did B end up?

how do you know A spun to the right?

was the road wet? or snowy?

---

Oops, jk, not jd. CarB ended pointed towards the side of the road almost perpendicular but with the front pointing a little more to the left. It was sitting in the farthest lane & shoulder. It was right at or a tad before the intersection. The road was wet. Someone stuck their head out the window just as carA was finishing up so we know it spun right. Plus from being hit between the wheel well & seat, it'd have to go that way. Plus it's one of the few things one of the drivers can report. ...your question though on that gives me a question to ask the lawyers that maybe will give them an idea.

I can easily see a possibility of it spinning left and remaining more or less in place. Spinning right presents a lot more problems with reaching the desired end. As I said, you can generally come up with a series of actions that will provide whatever result you want. The laws of probabilities often suggest it did not happen in the resulting scenario though.

and again, with such limited info, anything that does result is really only a stab in the dark.

given the road was wet, cars can slide all over the place without much problem. If car B reacted prior to hitting A, they could have begun a skid and rotational motion such that they hit A and sort of spun around A spinning A in the process. As I said, if A spun left it is a simpler conclusion as they were already heading left with wheels turned left (most likely) and the spin was complemented by their existing motion if B had hit them at in the process of themselves spinning to their right

Spinning to the right would mean B would have had to hit them such that it would impart a spinning force on A contrary to A's direction of travel, effectively stopping them in place and spinning them against their direction of travel. B would also have had to spin to their left rotating around the front of A while A was actually travelling in a direction such that their motion would be in a direction that would move to block B's motion around A. Not a likely scenario but given all possibilities, never say never.

but anyway, that's my best guess given the limited info.

I'm curious, can you give any info as to what is claimed happened and what you are trying to prove happened?

It would take you 2 minutes to make a quick sketch, and post it...

After reading all of this, I'm confused.

A sketch and photos of the scene and the damage would tell me a lot (I'm a collision investigator). At this point I'd have to add a lot of guesswork and I just don't want to work that hard.

Now, for the real point: Why are you asking? This is something the insurance companies deal with and, if the case is big enough, will pay guys $200-300+ per hour to reconstruct.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I can easily see a possibility of it spinning left and remaining more or less in place. Spinning right presents a lot more problems with reaching the desired end. As I said, you can generally come up with a series of actions that will provide whatever result you want. The laws of probabilities often suggest it did not happen in the resulting scenario though.
...
I'm curious, can you give any info as to what is claimed happened and what you are trying to prove happened?

---

You are very right that if A had spun left, it'd be much more easy to see the end point. Spinning to the right does mean that B hit so that A stopped in it's path and A went the other way from where it was headed.

The way you describe how this all goes in slow mo, helps me visualize. With B landing pointing towards the shoulder at a point before the impact point, means it couldn't have hit A and moved to A's right side (i.e A spinning left) and still landed where it did.

I'll try to post a sketch, which should make it more interesting to look at. Ideally if it were possible, I'd like to know that A couldn't realistically land there. That would make a huge difference in liability! (I've left out how/why this is so, to keep identity out.) It would force another version of events to have to be true, that would put liability on the drugged up driver & help take him off the road. For me to advocate for money spent on reconstruction & to pose or press this idea to various attorneys & police... I wanted to ask first and see if those more familiar with reconstruction than me would lean one way or the other on where A could land (that cars can & do land where they started, or that it's extremely rare.) Also often when you ask about an area you aren't familiar with, the answers give you info you never thought to ask in the first place.

You say something I hadn't put into context yet. That cars in rain can skid all sorts of ways.

Thanks for all the thoughts! If I figure out a place to post a sketch, I'll do that. (Any suggestions where?)

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

After reading all of this, I'm confused.

A sketch and photos of the scene and the damage would tell me a lot (I'm a collision investigator). At this point I'd have to add a lot of guesswork and I just don't want to work that hard.

Now, for the real point: Why are you asking? This is something the insurance companies deal with and, if the case is big enough, will pay guys $200-300+ per hour to reconstruct.

---

cdwjava - I answered a lot of your questions when posting to jk. I don't have the photos. I've tried hard to avoid posting identifying aspects, & I don't have the photos anyway.

My basic question is - as collision investigator, have you heard of or can you envision collisions where a car coming from a side road onto a 2 land road, gets hit & winds up pointing right back at the point the car came from? But parallel to the 2 lane road (not head pointing straight at side road.) A sketch would make that easier to picture.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting HonestAtheist

---

It would take you 2 minutes to make a quick sketch, and post it...

---

Nothing takes "2 mins." It's taken me a day just to get back here. and 45 mins to post a few replies. Can you suggest where I could post a scanned in page? I'd read jk's reply and thought, "gee i've got to post a sketch. How?". And read yours and thought, "why get snippy - no one dealing with this stuff has their life going in any sort of normal way, eh?"

https://www.google.com/search?q=imag...+hosting+sites


any photo hosting site

To answer your question as to whether I can envision a scenario like that, yes. But, there are a lot of questions I'd want to know that I simply can't get based upon a text description. The scene and the damage must be evaluated for a proper opinion.

Okay, I've made a sketch & posted it. Jk- that idea was great, easy to find a way to post.

http://postimg.org/image/j6iq7uy3x/

http://postimg.org/image/73dekan1p/

http://postimg.org/image/wxilwbxnx/


In the image it looks very possible to me (but only if you don't account for the cars moving forward down the road by force). Yet in person at the intersection it looks impossible.

On the pages I wrote "headlights" for the fronts of cars. That carA was rolling forward (not sideways) then almost hit the curb before stopping. "End point" and "final spot."

B was front dented into the hood, with the left headlight slightly more compacted than the right. So the denting was at a slight angle. Car A was dented from the wheel well to the driver's seat with the seat in the farthest.

Thank you!!

Quote:

---

Quoting aquestioner

---

This isn't a question of law so the state doesn't matter.

---

Actually, it is a question of law as much as it is a question about physics. Traffic laws dictate vehicular movement. Vehicular movement would speed, direction and location, all of which would dictate placement which after all, is the end result you're hoping to arrive at.

For example:

Quote:

---

Quoting aquestioner

---

It's much more likely carB failed to follow traffic law in this case.

---

CarB was on a 2 lane main street, CarA was entering the main street form what you described as a side street. Why would car B be in violation of any law when it is a greater likelihood that carA failed to yield to CarB?

This was quite possibly the most helpful clue here:

Quote:

---

Quoting aquestioner

---

If it can be ruled in that carA could land that way, it would make a difference to the case. If it can be ruled out that carA could not land that way it too would make a difference.

---

By the way, your pictures are too small, and any attempt to enlarge them (Ctrl +) results in a distortion of whatever comments or notes you've written on there making those impossible to read.

Lastly, it is understandable that you are attempting to protect the privacy of those involved, and that is respectable; however, you are asking some serious questions the answers to which could only end up being as mere guesses thereby compromising the seriousness, the value and/or validity of the final results. The outcome here is as good as the info you provide. Shady info can only be the basic ingredient of a shady answer.

Good luck in your quest!

ThatGuy,

The questions of law have already been taken into account. The impact result question is a consequence of knowing all the traffic laws involved, and what scenarios might have happened. Not just by me, but by police and attorneys. They have been taken into account in the question. And it's been thought out and reasonable question. You're trying to answer the overall question of who's at fault. I'm asking a very narrow question, of whether the car could have landed this way. The who's at fault involves other things, but this could significantly contribute to it.

When I click on the links, I get full screen photos. That's in several browsers. Wonder what others get.

The questions are serious, but the answers aren't going to be used in a court of law. But they will be very helpful. I'm sorry the "secretness" is bothering you. You'd have to trust that I'm reasonably intelligent, and thoughtful, and really did ask what I needed to ask, and understand the limits and values of possible answers. The info isn't shady. It's what's available (less than ideal unfortunately). Cases are like that sometimes...

I'm not protecting people's identity. There are cases involved, and it's better if stuff can't identified. Speed, I mentioned at the beginning is 45mph on the 2lane.

Thanks!

it's that guy. I get the pics just fine

- - - Updated - - -

A could absolutely end up in that position. That's easier than figuring out how B got where it is at

I am not sure how it ended up where it was rather than more to the right (as you look at the pic). If it rotated clockwise, as it pushed A to spin to the right, B could have been spun clockwise. I would have expected B to be more to the right as it seems it would be difficult for B to push A such that it would rotate right without it following it around to some extent which would cause it to spin right as well but due to the forward motion added to that, you would get an angular direction of travel causing it to continue beyond the initial point of impact.

the only possibility I can think of without more data would be that as B hit a and began to spin, B's throttle remained applied, or possibly even increased. That may have caused B to spin quickly nearly 180 deg but then due to the wheels being powered, it did kind of a donut thing and spun, not due completely to the inertial forces but due to the rear wheel powering it around which could make it essentially flip 90-180 degr due to the hit and then the remaining 180-90 deg as a powered donut action.

see, I told you nothing was impossible

Maybe these will work better

https://imageshack.com/i/3o3fchj
https://imageshack.com/i/0l2kpwj
https://imageshack.com/i/0rtqksj

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

it's that guy. I get the pics just fine

- - - Updated - - -

A could absolutely end up in that position. That's easier than figuring out how B got where it is at

---

Thanks. It looks like A's final spot makes complete sense in the image, yet in person it doesn't. So how much scale effects it - may be a lot. Also even if A swung around, wouldn't it have to move down the road a little at the same time from B's pushing at it? My remote goes down the bed when I bang at it... of course it's not trying to move to begin with. Your point on B's positon is very interesting. Hadn't thought about that being diffcult.

Assuming those pics are accurate depictions, I can absolutely see how A got to it's uncontrolled point of rest.

Assume that after impact they made a 180 degree spin to the left where carB spun loose and rolled backwards, and carA rolled forward ... wheel position, damage to the frame and axles, all could play an effect on the final positioning.

I'd be able to tell a lot more with photos of the scene.

However, this doesn't tell me fault at all. But, given the layout and assuming carB did NOT have a light or a stop sign, I'd say that the fault for this collision lies with carA. Though state law DOES matter as laws do vary to some degree by state, and not all states assign fault 100% to one party as they do in my state of CA.

Ultimately, the insurance companies can assign fault as they see fit and they do not have to agree with the police report.

So, why does the final position of carA vex you so much? It's the determination of fault as made by the police and the insurance companies that should be of the first concern when looking at who caused the crash. Where the cars ended up is really not all that important.

carl, B is facing the top side of the road at it;'s end point. It would have to spin 270 to get to that rotation.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

carl, B is facing the top side of the road at it;'s end point. It would have to spin 270 to get to that rotation.

---

Okay, then more than 180 degrees ... the point is, that little Virginia reel can easily spin them off in their respective ending directions.

Images of the scene and vehicle damage would tell the tale. Sketches are helpful, but of limited use in a reconstruction.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

However, this doesn't tell me fault at all. But, given the layout and assuming carB did NOT have a light or a stop sign, I'd say that the fault for this collision lies with carA. Though state law DOES matter as laws do vary to some degree by state, and not all states assign fault 100% to one party as they do in my state of CA.

So, why does the final position of carA vex you so much? It's the determination of fault as made by the police and the insurance companies that should be of the first concern when looking at who caused the crash. Where the cars ended up is really not all that important.

---

What your describing is B hitting right front fender and driver door of A, and both cars rotating left? Is that possible with B going around 45mph or slightly less if they slowed down (had very poor reaction time), but A going from a full stop only a short distance so much slower than B. Wouldn't B's greater speed push both of them to the right?

At this point, with all the possible data gathered, the police are sure who's at fault but can't prove it enough. It would help prove it. Why assume there isn't a stop light? Not useful though if you have no idea who had right of way. Insurance isn't the concern in this.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

the only possibility I can think of without more data would be that as B hit a and began to spin, B's throttle remained applied, or possibly even increased. That may have caused B to spin quickly nearly 180 deg but then due to the wheels being powered, it did kind of a donut thing and spun, not due completely to the inertial forces but due to the rear wheel powering it around which could make it essentially flip 90-180 degr due to the hit and then the remaining 180-90 deg as a powered donut action.

see, I told you nothing was impossible

---

LOL. You did say so :). B throttling is something to consider. Hadn't thought of that. How do you see A landing there without some of the force moving it down the road, especially with it being wet pavement? That's the part that's been puzzling me in this.

Quote:

---

Quoting aquestioner

---

What your describing is B hitting right front fender and driver door of A, and both cars rotating left? Is that possible with B going around 45mph or slightly less if they slowed down (had very poor reaction time), but A going from a full stop only a short distance so much slower than B. Wouldn't B's greater speed push both of them to the right?

At this point, with all the possible data gathered, the police are sure who's at fault but can't prove it enough. It would help prove it. Why assume there isn't a stop light? Not useful though - no idea who had right of way. Insurance isn't the concern in this.

---

I thought you said they rotated to the right?

You did:

Quote:

---

Someone stuck their head out the window just as carA was finishing up so we know it spun right.

---

Quote:

---

---

you said A was hit between the wheel well and the seat. Is that the front wheel well or the rear wheel well? Front good for my description, Rear bad for my description.


is A front wheel drive or rear wheel drive?

Any evaluation is only as good as the data provided. I'm not going to try and pull teeth to find out all the info I need to analyze this thing. Based solely in the sketch provided, I can conceive and have seen cars end up in the positions described. If we keep adding dents and points of impact on vehicles, I can still hypothesize scenarios to make the points of rest work.

Without sufficient data, this is nothing more than coin flipping. If you don't even know if lights or stop signs were present then that makes this an exercise in futility.

If not about fault, then what?

Here's what you do if it is that important: Immediately hire a reconstructionist, have him get the reports, visit the scene before the evidence on the road has disappeared entirely and the damage to vehicles has been repaired or the vehicles destroyed, and pay him to out together a scenario to your liking.

Good luck.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I thought you said they rotated to the right?

is A front wheel drive or rear wheel drive?

---

Yes they rotated right, at least by the end that was the observation. I was just trying to follow CWD's description and see if he had a viable way to make them land this way.

A is front wheel drive. Impact was front wheel well to driver's seat.

Quote:

---

Quoting aquestioner

---

Yes they rotated right, at least by the end that was the observation. I was just trying to follow CWD's description and see if he had a viable way to make them land this way.

A is front wheel drive. Impact was front wheel well to driver's seat.

---

This is what I mean ... A rotation to the right more than 180 degrees can do the same thing ... Without knowing the scene and the damage or have witness or party statements it's impossible to determine what happened. It shouldn't be tough to determine fault if the scene was analyzed.

And to clarify, I should have said that I envisioned the cars joined and spinning counterclockwise, not "left" as I originally wrote ... That' the problem with typing on an iPad screen and thinking "left turn" while Iam writing.

Quote:

---

Quoting aquestioner

---

Yes they rotated right, at least by the end that was the observation. I was just trying to follow CWD's description and see if he had a viable way to make them land this way.

A is front wheel drive. Impact was front wheel well to driver's seat.

---

perfect;


A was hot rodding, spinning their wheels in an attempt to avoid getting hit by B as they realize they pulled out in front of B. This cause a very low level of friction on the front wheel so as B hit A more towards the front of the car, it spun, nearly pivoting on the rear wheels and then slowly rolling to the final resting point.

B, as it hit A had at first considered going left around A but after realizing A was not stopping went to dive to the right initiating a rotational force that when striking A, cause both to rotate clockwise and due to the size of B, it made a quick intertial driven flip spin and then, gaining some traction and being about 180 degrees rotate from perpendicular to original direction of travel under it's own driving forces continue to freespin the drive wheels causing it to move the opposite direction of original travel but due to the rotational forces existing continued with the spin and eventually driving across the road to its final resting position.


Good enough?

and since there are no facts present that either support or refute that, it is nothing more than a WAG*





*wild ass guess

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Based solely in the sketch provided, I can conceive and have seen cars end up in the positions described.

---

That's what I needed to know. Much appreciated. I am unclear -how- they could wind up there. If you can give any description that would place them there, it'd be great.

Your spin to the left description doesn't seem to fit the data that is available?

Quote:

---

I'm not going to try and pull teeth to find out all the info I need to analyze this thing.

---

What data do you need that you don't have (that I have)? I need to know if this end point is possible from this starting point. (Not probable, not what happened, but just possible is good enough.) There are other possible scenarios and ruling this out, would rule that in those others and actually answer to fault. Haven't you had an instance in investigation where who had the light is unknown and therefore can't be used to determine fault?

Quote:

---

Here's what you do if it is that important: Immediately hire a reconstructionist, have him get the reports, visit the scene before the evidence on the road has disappeared entirely and the damage to vehicles has been repaired or the vehicles destroyed, and pay him to out together a scenario to your liking.

---

Would you recommend someone post photos of the cars & intersection and every last detail here? Not likely.

Life isn't perfect. The investigation wasn't as it should have been (and that was outside my control). So now I'm looking at what I do have. So I considered whether to talk to the various folks involved in the investigation to do a reconstruction. But I also saw very good insights on this site so I thought I might get some ideas here (and I have). Then I'd be a wiser person when I ask people to spend a good deal of money.

You don't have enough info to do a reconstruction, of course not. But I asked if it's possible to land there, or if the cars would naturally have to land down the road a few more feet. I figured someone who's seen accidents and where cars landed, can tell me if this is -possible-... or if EVERY SINGLE TIME, the car HAS to move down the road a bit.

Seems like something someone with experience would know, and someone without would ask.

You've answered that you've seen it in your experience. If you can describe from the sketches even one way that could happen, that would help. Otherwise, thank you...!

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

perfect;
...eventually driving across the road to its final resting position.

Good enough?

---

Yep, answers the original question! Also helps me see some of the factors considered in reconstructing. Gives me an idea of what to expect down the road, as I ask about this to the attorneys & police. If there is better data or a reconstruction I'll come back & add it.

WAG- answers with a possible scenario. So it's not guessing. It's what the question was.

If it reaches a point where it's appropriate to post the rest of the story -- I'll come back and do that too...

Thank you very much!

- - - Updated - - -


=========================
Why was the title of this question changed?

Unless offensive, why take away a person's expression of their question, and replace it with someone else's?

Two reasons:

1. Admin attempts to make title succinct and accurate
2. Because they can

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Two reasons:

1. Admin attempts to make title succinct and accurate
2. Because they can

---

"Because they can" - sounds like a power trip for them.

"Admin attempts to make title succinct and accurate" - it was short. And it was accurate. Without explaining the need to poster or even the action, they lose credibility.

Quote:

---

Quoting aquestioner

---

"Because they can" - sounds like a power trip for them.

"Admin attempts to make title succinct and accurate" - it was short. And it was accurate. Without explaining the need to poster or even the action, they lose credibility.

---

I'm not an administrator and I do not recall what your title was. I would have to guess they felt the new title better described the thread and they changed it.

as to the power trip;

Of course it can be a power trip and it may very well be an ego massaging activity of the admin but in the end, it's their right and if that floats their boat, so be it.

when you or I have our own site, we can do it too if we so choose and the posters can do one of a few things:

accept it and say nothing
accept it but gripe about it
not accept it and leave

in the end, the net result will be the same; the admin will change a title if they so choose.

[QUOTE=jk;760145]I'm not an administrator and I do not recall what your title was.
as to the power trip;
Of course it can be a power trip and it may very well be an ego massaging activity of the admin but in the end, it's their right and if that floats their boat, so be it.

QUOTE]

...or point out what it is (call it out for what it is.) So it's not done in silence, and therefore a good part of their power trip is removed.

Quote:

---

Quoting aquestioner

---

...or point out what it is (call it out for what it is.) So it's not done in silence, and therefore a good part of their power trip is removed.

---

actually the reinforces their ego trip because you noticed the change, apparently had issue with it, and said something about and the result;

they still aren't going to change the title to what you want.

They got a couple strokes of their ego on that one! The recognition is likely more empowering to them than the act itself.

and then posting statements like this?

Damn, they're in admin nirvana.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

actually the reinforces their ego trip because you noticed the change, apparently had issue with it, and said something about and the result;

they still aren't going to change the title to what you want.

They got a couple strokes of their ego on that one! The recognition is likely more empowering to them than the act itself.

and then posting statements like this?

Damn, they're in admin nirvana.

---

Quite the opposite. Pointing out that its' a power trip, makes them look foolish that they get their jollies this way. That takes away their power. The emperor has no clothes.

I didn't ask them to change the title back. This title works better for my purposes of not being obvious. So I'm glad they changed it.

Just thought it overtly odd that they needed to power trip this way -- the whole site has way too many fragile egos on it. This action is just one more showing of that. I wanted whoever in admin who's reading this to know they come across as needing to power trip, not as legit monitoring. I had control - since I had voice here. Now others reading, will know this about (someone in) admin here & not be impressed (well those reading who aren't in need of power tripping).

Quote:

---

aquestioner;760164]Quite the opposite. Pointing out that its' a power trip, makes them look foolish that they get their jollies this way. That takes away their power. The emperor has no clothes.

---

makes them look foolish? To whom? I have an idea who a couple admins are for this site but I know nothing about them such as they would give a rat's ass about looking foolish to me.



Seriously, you aren't getting it.

Quote:

---

Just thought it overtly odd that they needed to power trip this way

---

-nobody said it was for the ego trip,. It may be but since I do not know who changes the titles, I have no way of knowing what they get out of it/

Quote:

---

I had control - since I had voice here.

---

No, you never had control. You may think you had or have control but you have absolutely zero control on anothers website. Hell, for what it's worth, an evil administrator could go in and type whatever they want and put your username on it> They can edit your actual posts any way they want and you could do nothing about either sitaution; you have no control.

Quote:

---

Now others reading, will know this about (someone in) admin here & not be impressed (well those reading who aren't in need of power tripping)

---

not if admin has a problem with is because they will just remove the statement, the post, your threads, or even you from this site if they wish.

you just are not getting this internet thing.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

makes them look foolish? To whom? I have an idea who a couple admins are for this site but I know nothing about them such as they would give a rat's ass about looking foolish to me.

Seriously, you aren't getting it.

-nobody said it was for the ego trip,. It may be but since I do not know who changes the titles, I have no way of knowing what they get out of it/

No, you never had control. You may think you had or have control but you have absolutely zero control on anothers website. Hell, for what it's worth, an evil administrator could go in and type whatever they want and put your username on it> They can edit your actual posts any way they want and you could do nothing about either sitaution; you have no control.


not if admin has a problem with is because they will just remove the statement, the post, your threads, or even you from this site if they wish.

you just are not getting this internet thing.

---

I've done it in person, and in real life in email -- and watched people slink off. I've done it online on sites where I've had more ways to tell, and sure enough, works there too. You're the one who's missing how really fragile those with such "concerns" are.

":you just are not getting this internet thing. "

No. You're taking this internet thing too seriously, IMHO. Also missing that it's real people online, who act the same as they do in person... only more so.

Yes, I got my voice & deleting doesn't change that. You're mistaking what power & control is, with the powerless person's version.

BTW, the old posts on page bottom suggestions are another version of this stuff. New people automatically post to those old things, not realizing it. Then someone can tell the newbie how silly they they were. A simple addition to the box's title that currently reads "similar threads" would fix that. But it's not done because this setup is "wanted" by whomever. Thing is, it drives away plenty of interesting people who see it for the silliness it is & just move on. The site would be much more active without this these things.

Actually, this is a very active forum.

To to how it is structures: 'I have nothing to do with that

To much of your babble: I don't have a clue as to what the hell you as even talking about.

as to having your voice: if it is on this forum of any other forum you don't control/ you have a voice only as long as they allow you to. You can be prevented from posting and your posts can all be removed anytime the owner wants of do so.