I Don’t Want to See Anyone Doing Anything. Period.

Submitted by: Luxembourg via Oddly Specific

This entry was posted in Road Signs and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

93 Responses to I Don’t Want to See Anyone Doing Anything. Period.

  1. CraBluBro says:

    It’s just a Dutch sign. Nothing wrong or strange about it.

  2. B says:

    This is taken totally out of context. This is a sign indicating “end of domestic area” (and its opposite is the same except without the red bar). If it were a prohibitive sign, the background would be yellow.

  3. Dominik says:

    The interpretation of this picture is wrong. It’s an Austrian sign, and I am Austrian. This sign means “End of play street”. Here are children allowed to play on the street, i.e. soccer or something. Car drivers have to drive verly slowly and carefully.
    This sign just means, that the play street is here at its end, drivers are now allowed to drive on less carefully, as no children are to be expected from here on the street.
    If you have questions, just let me know!

    • Nerte says:

      Yea, we have it in Slovakia too. It’s normal sign, I believe they use it everywhere in Europe.

  4. Teun says:

    This is just a sign that youre no longer in the neighbourhood.

  5. KingCrunch says:

    A typical german sign, which means “End of play street”. Dont see a reason, why this should be odd ^^ We have thousand of them here.
    It shows a car, which must wait, if there is somebody playing on the street.

  6. rdtfhu says:

    That’s actually a normal sign…

  7. Gristle McNerd says:

    actually this just means that the children’s playing zone ends there and that cars are allowed to speed all they want again iirc… don’t have a license myself, though, so I never really needed to know these things.

  8. Krischn says:

    This is actually a common road sign in central Europe which signals the end of a low-traffic area.

    Cf. http://www.fahrtipps.de/frage/verkehrsberuhigter-bereich.php

  9. SecreT says:

    This signs only shows that a “playroad” ends?

  10. qousqous says:

    What this sign means is that you are leaving a home zone/living street/woonerf, which are a few different names for a street where “the needs of car drivers are secondary to the needs of users of the street as a whole. It is a space designed to be shared by pedestrians, playing children, bicyclists, and low-speed motor vehicles.” Thus, you’ve got kids playing in the street that cars also drive on, next to houses. The red slash across means that you’re leaving that area.


  11. Jeroen-bart Engelen says:

    Actually that looks like a sign we could have here in the Netherlands. There should also be a version without the red stripe. It means that you are entering an area designated as a safe living area (people walking on the street, children playing on the street), so alternate traffic rules apply. Like a maximum speed of 15 KM/h and all traffic coming from the right takes precedence.
    The red stripe version simply means you are leavign this area and all traffic rules are now back to normal.

  12. Tiffy says:

    Well that’s easy to explain: This sign means, that a “play street” (more or less direct translation) ends here. Play street are often near kindergartens or in residential areas and you’re only allowed to drive walking speed there (among other things), ’cause children might be playing/running around.

  13. Oliver says:

    It’s not actually about forbidding anything. It merely means you’re about to leave the “play road” zone where kids are actually allowed to play on the street. Its counterpart (when entering that zone) is the same sign without the red bar

  14. Oliver says:

    BTW: Why didn’t I see all those duplicate comments until after I posted my own?

  15. Fig says:

    rightrightright, taken out of context, perfectly sensible. sure, fine. but! you guys are all taking it out of the context this site is putting it in; that of an audience who reads the symbols differently, i.e. ‘no this or that.’ we’re allowed to think it’s funny because we read it differently, and we can all still understand it’s a pretty normal sign. that even applies to signs without the interpretational difference.

    that being said… teehee! no housing, no playing, no walking, no car-ing… lawl!

  16. john says:


    a normal sign …

  17. V. says:

    Um, this one is pretty common here in Belgium. It indicates the end of a heavily-lived-in area.

  18. Shnurui says:

    Ok, This is a WTF to people who treat EVERY STREET, except highways as play zones. In America this sign is replaced by a speed limit sign that says excess of 35 MPH(68 KPH). ‘high speed’ zones are demarked with their upper limits, not a sign saying ‘not a neighberhood’ or ‘children at play’. Only sign that could be like this is “End School Zone” and the opposite “School Zone”. Even in big east coast cities, “Play streets” are quartered off with substantial blockaides.

    This sign in English Reads…No walking, No parking, No playing soccer, No houses….

  19. EU citizen says:

    OMG, what a surprise! People from that country just bellow Canada and above Mexico don’t seem to understand this sign! Sarcasm: off.

  20. The Upright Man says:

    The site’s name is ‘oddlyspecific’ not ‘outofcontextsigns’. This sign does not belong here. Shnurui and fig need to shadap.

  21. janker says:

    well not every city have those types of signs, i’ve never seen anything like it, and someone who’s never seen it would find this very odd or strange.

  22. “A typical german sign” – nope, this sign is also used many European countries, for example here, Hungary.

    p.s. Okay, I can’t use english language….

  23. Deanna says:

    This may be common in other countries, but I’ve never seen anything like this in the U.S. Here, a sign with a picture means you are allowed to do whatever the picture is depicting. A sign with a picture and a red line across it means you are not allowed to do what the picture is depicting. May not be funny for those in other countries, but for us it’s quite funny.

  24. QD says:

    Why is there always a contingent of commentators on these sites who have to judge every entry as to whether it belongs into the site’s theme or not? Are you refugees from Photoshop Disasters or something?

    OK, so maybe this one does not fit perfectly. So what? I enjoyed seeing it and learning what iot was about. What do you want? Peer review? Sheesh! Pop in for some daily laughs and move on with life.

    >>>This may be common in other countries, but I’ve never seen anything like this in the U.S.

    For some reason those of us in the U.S. are expected to know every last detail of every culture in the world lest we be arrogant or selfish. Meanwhile, polls a few years back that indicated people around the world think “The Sopranos” was a realistic depiction of a typical American’s lifestyle, well, that’s *perfectly* OK.

  25. E says:

    Wow. Showed the sign to my young kids and they both thought it meant no playing soccer in the street. But I guess they’re just dumb, arrogant Americans who should really know that in Germany, Austria and the Netherlands it means this is the end of a neighborhood.

    Here in the States, we know it’s the end of a neighborhood because there’s no more houses, the businesses start back up again, and generally speaking the speed limit is raised. I guess we don’t need a sign for that :/

    I guess I put too much faith in the “international” sign for no/not allowed. I guess it’s just the “American” sign for no/not allowed.

  26. Yodan says:

    A standard sign also in Israel.

  27. t says:

    it’s not the end of a neighborhood, its the end of a part of the neighborhood in which children are allowed to play on the streets..

  28. Daniel says:

    The problem is that this is a stupid back-formation of a fairly transparent sign. Without the slash, the sign would mean a residential area in which various activities may take place, and each should accommodate the others. The slash is meant to say that one is exiting from such an area.

  29. Shep333 says:

    As an ignorant American, i can see why this sign is quite funny. No People Walking, No Children Playing, No Cars Driving, No Houses Being Houses. Only people who have been told what this sign is supposed to mean would think it was anything but fairly amusing. Also i think the reason we don’t just assume it means “End of Play Street” is because that child is clearly using a soccer ball, and all Americans know Soccer is not considered playing because it is indeed not fun at all. HEHEHE. In the USA, we silly yankees would probably put up a sign that read “Begin Play Street”or “End Play Street” instead of some abstract art piece to convey the rules of the road. Cue Anti-American Sentiment……NOW!

  30. the cat says:

    Even if you interpret it the way people are saying, to me it looks like “no playing on the road”, not several disconnected scenes. Am I the only one who sees that?

  31. Elina says:

    As an ignorant European, I’m wondering which language we should pick for the sign in countries that have more than one official language? Pictures are easier than “Begin Play Street” in, say, three different languages. These road signs are pretty much standardized throughout the EU and thus easily interpreted by Europeans.

    I’d love to post a pre-emptive strike against the next poster, but can’t really think of anything witty enough. Such is life…

  32. Buster says:

    In Sweden this signs (or more specifically the one without the red bar) signifies an area where all motor vehicles are required to to not exceed walking speed and also yield to any and all pedestrians.

    If you have more than half a brain you””ll notice that the sign is not forbidding anything since it””s not encircled in red nor have a yellow background.

  33. O says:

    People do need to keep in mind that when someone pretends to be from one region, he or she may be from another. A Canadian might pretend to be an American bashing Europeans, or to be a European bashing Americans. I wouldn’t put it past those Canadians. (And I might be a Canadian saying that.)

  34. Not that anyone is still reading these comments any more, but:
    * This sign is not common outside of Europe
    * This sign mis-uses the internationally recognized “forbidden” red slash.

    I don’t care that Europeans have seen it so often that it’s meaning has become common sense to them specifically. It’s not common sense to ANYONE ELSE because it mis-uses international symbology.


  35. Aerz says:

    Uhm… did YOU read the article, Jesse?

    “The no symbol (also prohibition sign, circle-backslash symbol, or universal no) is a CIRCLE with a diagonal line through it (running from top left to bottom right), surrounding a pictogram used to indicate something is not permitted. The no symbol is usually colored red.

    So much for misuse of international symbology…

  36. Yeti from Germany says:

    @Deanna: Yeah. Just like “Ausfahrt” (Exit). Har har. Sounds like fart. German is SUCH a funny language. Wow. “Hung(a)ry is a country???” says the Stupid White Woman.

  37. Yeti from Germany says:

    By the same logic, the end of any city limits in Germany (and maybe other parts of Yurop) would mean “No Hamburg” instead of “City Limits Hamburg”, as that is a yellow sign with the name of the city and a red bar across. Har har.

    It’s not in a circle so it is NOT a “forbidden” sign!

    BTW, why use so much text on a sign? This always amuses me, how Americans can squeeze a whole paragraph on a sign when a pictogram would do it for everybody. (What is a JCT (yes, I know now!)? Who would think “Gator X-ing” would warn of crossing alligators without special knowledge?) But then again only Americans should be driving American roads, right?!

    It sure is funny that you always put “MPH” under your speed limit signs. Weird combination of letters. Hahaha.

    Just because you don’t understand something, don’t ridicule it. What would you say about the matching sign without the red bar? “Oh, there are houses on the street and maybe children playing soccer but not tennis.”

    On the other hand, we could start printing German text on every sign, this one would be “Ende des verkehrsberuhigten Bereiches”. Muuuuch more fun. Jaja.

  38. Pavel says:

    Jesse:”The no symbol (also prohibition sign, circle-backslash symbol, or universal no) is a CIRCLE with a diagonal line through it”

    Do you know what “circle” means?

    red slash is used for end of regulation. for example:

  39. chris says:

    Wow, trust my fellow europeans to be all serious and snotty about this one. I’ve seen this sign of course and I know what it means, but I actually snorted out my tea when I saw the title you guys came up with. So shut up, haters!

  40. IbnObnNebnDa says:

    But the international NoSignal is a red circle with a red diagonal line through it and the sign above has only a red diagonal line through it without a red circle 😉

  41. xyz says:

    Driving both place I prefer EU road signs to the ones in US. Yes, they require a bit more effort (not really that bad) to learn, but then make driving easy across the continent regardless of local language(s) in use (as such is a must in place as diverse as Europe is, you do not want foreign drivers not knowing what are they supposed to do). US being (mostly) monolingual, standardized symbols not as important, but honestly, hasn’t it happened to you before that you just did not have enough time passing by to read the whole darned thing thinking: I wish there was a symbol for this. Not to mention local creativity playing its role, so even with a county, you get: DEAD END, NO OUTLET, NOT A THROUGH STREET. One learns to appreciate something like: . And of course authorities sometimes cannot spell, so I remember cracking up in Lafayette, CO at road signs saying: “NO PARKING IN ROUND-A-BOUT”.

    And no, red line is not internationally recognized forbidden symbol misused. At least the Europeans (part of international by definition) would know this can denote an end of something: city limits (as someone has pointed out), freeway, road for motor vehicles, tunnel, residential area (like in the picture); minimal speed, head lights on area, pedestrian zone… In fact the clue would be: blue background is there to inform, advise or instruct what to do, not to forbid. Signs are color and shape coded and that is across the continent (perhaps UK partially excluded, but them being “on” the continent could be disputed from both ends of the channel) and it seems to work well for the Europeans. Makes my driving easier whether I am in Germany, Spain, Sweden, Hungary (and trust me, all the other places I get a clue, even Greece which some might consider problematic due to a different alphabet, of what does that mean, but surely not so in Hungary) or Italy.

    In fact it should work for visitors as well. I sure would not necessarily expect everyone to read Greek and Cyrillic for US style road signs in the respective countries. Even many Europeans don’t.

  42. LcNessie says:

    Well, actually…

    I really do think that it’s an odd sign. I know what it means, being a resident of the Dutchielands after all, but I never got used to it.

    It doesn’t fit normal convention and carries a lot of unnecessary information. Before this, the sign “begin residential street” used to be a house with a square around it, the square being half open at the bottom. The sign “end residential street” was the same sign with the red bar through it as this sign has too.

    Since every sign of this class is square and blue, it fits in a category. This one is rectangular, has a lot of superfluous pictures and happens to be blue. If they really wanted to make a statement, they should have made it yellow, orange or purple. Hot pink, even! That would attract attention…

    Yes, it is a common sign in Europe, but it’s an odd one out…

  43. Sascha says:

    It’s also a german sign. Nothing strange here.

  44. Dustin Kick says:

    I think it’s a “do not play in traffic” sign.

  45. Daniel says:


    If the signs have to be specially learnt, then they constitute a language to themselves. If all of Europe had instead adopted the signs that prevailed in one of its constituent nations, then people in those other countries wouldn’t have had to learn more than they had to learn anyway.

    The sign above represents two sorts of failures. The first failure is the obvious failure — that it cannot be understood without prior special explanation — but this failure may be excusable. (Anyone got a truly better design?)

    The second failure is terrible. The “red line is not internationally recognized forbidden symbol”? It used to be, after literally millennia of diagonal slashing being used for such purpose. If this element is hijacked for other purposes, then it becomes ambiguous in its prior context. How goddamn’d, inexcusably stupid!

  46. sashka says:

    quote: E says: “I guess we don’t need a sign for that :/”

    It’s funny to read this on a website like this. Because you need a sign for posting no signs. or sign cautioning it’s own sharp edges. or signs like “be prepared to stop”…..”stop”.

    etc… etc…

  47. kvweber says:

    I am assuming (as an American student too poor to be well-traveled) that signs in European countries that are presented in blue are not cautionary or negation signs (Do not ___). It makes perfect sense to me, still to the average American, the large negation red line across the sign means “NO”, so that’s the first thing you think. Plus, the idea of “no anyone doing anything” is somewhat funny. 🙂

  48. xyz says:


    yes, it is a symbolic language of its own and there is nothing wrong with that. But for environment as heterogeneous as Europe, it is much easier to agree on this rather then say: let’s use them all written in Hungarian… wait, German, no Polish… Italian silly… Living in EU, you do not get a license without passing a test to make sure you know these. Those few coming from overseas just need to learn (which they would anyway should the road sign be let’s say in Finnish).

    And as stated, once you learn the code (again, requirement to get a license), you are much faster and more efficient at recognizing shapes and colors even when getting just a glimpse of that sign. It’s similar to a computer UI… first time you walk in and look around, rolling mouse around and point-clicking on different icons or descriptive menu items seems indeed much faster and more efficient, but once you learn and become proficient this type of UI gets in your way as keyboard shortcuts and/or abbreviations somewhat cryptic at first on the command line beat it hands down.

    “It used to be, after literally millennia of diagonal slashing being used for such purpose.”
    [citation needed] – sorry I am not much for “self-evident” facts

  49. jgt2598 says:

    I feel that the reason that this sign is funny is because it has so much going on. A simple house with a red slash through it would suffice, even to U.S. Citizens like my self who would at first interpret the sign as “no houses beyond this point” would realize that this refers to the end of a major residential area (hence, there should be no children playing on the streets beyond that point).

    Europe: “Americans are stupid, we are the master race!”
    America: “Europeans stink, we are the master race!”
    Guys, this argument NEVER ends well for either side.

  50. Seibee says:

    Being from a European country myself I can honestly say I’ve never seen this sign, and my first reaction was similar to the poster’s.
    Then again I’m not entirely sure what the UK counts as these days. And hopefully no-one will say anything mean ^_^;

  51. Sam says:

    What I have learned from this sign is that people in Europe have trouble with comedy outside of their own context. Imma gonna stop reading comments.

  52. harry says:

    this is just a normal sign to call the end of a street were children could be playing and you have to drive 15 km/h in this area. so sorry oddlyspecific… 😦

  53. xyz says:


    “Then again I’m not entirely sure what the UK counts as these days.”

    These days? There has been a change at any point in the history? My understanding is that Europe is (and has always been) that big island East of continental UK. 😉

    Yes, UK road signs are (not entirely surprisingly and it’s not only road signs) different from the rest of EU. It is somewhere half way between EU and US style (some (fewer) symbols, some pieces of literature).

    And of course there is this driving on the wrong (as opposed to the right, right?) side of the street. 😉 Which along with waters of the Channel IMO limits number of people just driving across. I myself am OK to fly into UK and rent a vehicle, but I would not want to be in the traffic with driver seat on the side that does not match.

  54. Seibee says:

    And vice versa. Being in a car driven on the right hand side of the road makes me a bit nervous lol. I wish we did have those play streets though – a lot of drivers, whatever side of the road they’re on, tend not to be too careful.

  55. Shep333 says:

    Europe…Ur Signs Suck and you smell like cabbage and rain.
    America…Our Signs Rule and we are the more funny!
    (I think that about sums it up)(Hope i wasn’t too controversial)(JK btw…so relax)

  56. L says:

    Planing on doing anything? For example, breathing? Just, don’t…

  57. Daniel says:


    The point is that, the virtue of having only one set of signs to learn not-withstanding, these signs are over-sold; these signs don’t in fact accomplish what they are pretended to accomplish. Belaboring the inchallenged point that it was politically easier to sell an entirely new system than to get wider use of an existing system doesn’t obviate the over-selling.

    No one claimed self-evidence on the slash; I just expect you to have at lest the modicum of knowledge of history involved. Thousands of years ago and yester-day, if someone drew or cut a slash or crossing-slashes into a page, sign, picture, &c, it was taken as active rejection. The slash was not unique amongst such acts, but it is simple. Thence the “universal” slash-through for things rejected (and like-wise over-printing of Xs, to cross-through). I’m not much for catering to gross ignorance or to snide unwillingness to draw upon what one already knows, so don’t monkey-dance about citations.

  58. srsly? says:

    Wow… Thanks for the same explanation of this perfectly normal sign (in your countries) 50 times. I didnt quite get it the first 10 times I read that it means its the end of a play zone and that it is a normal sign. I’m still not quite sure I get it. What does this sign mean EXACTLY?

    Why are all of you so defensive over the meaning of a sign in the first place? I am sure lots of the signs on this website have normal meanings. They are still funny looking. If you dont like it then why are you here?

  59. RandomIdiot says:

    Wow, no comments on this topic in over a week. I’m so proud of you people, I might cry.

    Now let’s all join hands and start singing “It’s a small world”.

  60. Chillian says:

    Honestly, guys. The red slash looks shopped. Without it the sign is simply warning motorists that they’re in a residential zone, and to look out for pedestrians and children playing.

  61. sey says:

    not shopped, they’re all over the place. a playzone is a part of the street where you may only drive in first gear without using the gas pedal at all (as in “walking speed”) and have to be extra careful because kids, balls and dogs can be all over the place and suddenly appear in front of your car out of nowhere. and this sign shows you’re finally leaving this zone. (germany, think i’ve also seen them in france.)

  62. BoonPflug says:

    well im german and i laughed my ass off when i saw it xD
    i mean i see it every day but with a caption like this .. priceless ^^

  63. xyz says:

    Sorry, using stronger language does not make or prove you right. Not matter how hard you wish or believe it does. Assuming you have not lived for thousands of years I take it you cannot say this from your own experience. Shine a light of wisdom on us ignorant people and share what the source of your knowledge is.

    In fact if my further and more daring assumption about you is correct is correct your nation’s history spans couple centuries, it would is kindda funny when you extrapolate (unless being studied and proficient in history, in which case I believe you’d just pass the reference to the appropriate source) your experience acquired in your environment over millenia.

    Until proven otherwise, I am sorry but I highly doubt your conclusion. If nothing else I am not sure red coloring agent would be readily available (and even if so affordable) around the world for thousands of years to make your claim of standardized use even possible.

    Otherwise, say what you want. As I’ve said. Drive both places and I myself prefer EU style. Might be just that I am used to it and a short glimpse makes an immediate sense to me, but I am not saying US needs to switch or anything if majority is happy. I do read Latin alphabet and understand English, so should not be an immediate danger to other motorists driving around not knowing what the heck is going on.

    Have you ever been to Greece? Or Bulgaria? Or China? (or Hungary? same alphabet, but boy that language is unlike pretty much anything I’ve seen) Symbols might strike you as a better idea after trying to figure out just which sign points to which town you are looking for (let alone imagine they are conveying all information in that way).

  64. Daniel says:

    No one claimed that stronger language made me right. There are thousands of years of historical reports and of still surviving, slashed artefacts. As I said, I’m not much for catering to gross ignorance or to snide unwillingness to draw upon what one already knows, so don’t monkey-dance about citations.
    The notion that the age of our respective nations is a proxy for our relative amounts of knowledge is both absurd and irrelevant. Absurd because you haven’t lived longer or seen more for having lived in a country longer occupied by Western Civilization. Irrelevant because it doesn’t take particularly much experience — perhaps no more than high school — before one has read enough history and seen enough photographs of artefacts to have learned that people have long slashed things as an act of rejection.
    I said nothing about the color of slashes, and won’t let you do much with your red herring.
    Virtually every reader will know your monkey-dance for what it is. It’s certainly not worth paying your price to make you stop.

  65. xyz says:

    But I am willing… just give me some references. 🙂

    NO, I am just saying, this cannot be from your personal nor national experience. Even more so, why there has to be some authority you have learned this “fact” from. All I am asking is: Please, please, enlighten my ignorant self and share the source of your wisdom.

    Yes, sorry, you did not say red, that was Jesse Thompson (“This sign mis-uses the internationally recognized “forbidden” red slash. “) and you’ve then picked up my comment.

    Let me rephrase. Yes, in last one or two hundred years, you’d slash things out to denote forbidden. Past that, I want to see reference to those historical artifacts you’re referring to. As far as I remember from my paleography classes, the only “slashing” I’ve seen was: “Oops, my mistake, scratch that, this is how it goes.”

    And red slash on sign is internationally (even though US might not be part of this particular group of nations, but Germans, French, Spanish, Polish, Hungarian… people as well as many more nations constitute international IMO) recognized symbol for end of previously announced condition. And has been so for about at least 100 years now (longer then either of us has lived).

    You’ve agreed to the blue sign depicting begging of such “Play area”. Any suggestion how to mark its end without using any specific language? And why your suggestion would be better then what we currently have to change a century’s practice?

  66. Daniel says:

    Again, I’m not much for catering to gross ignorance or to snide unwillingness to draw upon what one already knows. Likewise, if you insist that I provide you with a standard table of multiplication, I’d refuse.
    Stop belaboring the color of the slash; I’ve said nothing for or against the use of any color, nor about how long any color has or has not been used.
    I declared ab initio that it would be difficult to produce a good sign to convey the notion that this sign is supposed to convey, and I don’t pretend to know what a good sign would be. As to one that is merely less bad, it would have been better to take a previously unused element than to weaken the semantic content of a pre-existing element. The sign would remain obscure to the uninformed, but the slash would not then be more ambiguous in other contexts.

  67. xyz says:

    Ah, you have not read my post, not sure why you bother to reply to it. I’ve apologized (I understand that is what word ‘sorry’ is commonly used for) for incorrectly attributing Jesse’s colored slash “fact” statement to you. That was a mistake on my part.

    As stated, last hundred years, blue sign, red slash… end of previously announced. Perfectly clear withing the context. I guess we are fine with few visitors who understand “beginning of residential area” sign and get confused by the end of it. This does not sound grossly dangerous. In fact, technically interpretation of “do not do the depicted beyond this point” is not far from truth and you want to tell your children to be much more careful past that point.

    As for calling me grossly ignorant… I am sorry, but that does not make me buy your “self-obvious” statements. It is your personal belief (whatever let you to that) and I have no objection against personal belief as long as it reflected upon and presented as such. When mistaken for a universal “fact”, that is when I speak up and ask for reference. Your failure to provide one (and instead drawing a ad hominem argument) shows that you have none, you believe what you believe, but insist it is a fact. We are looking at fairly innocent issue here, but be warned, in certain areas (like religion), personal beliefs unrecognized and mistaken for hard facts can start wars.

    No idea about your background. But as a matter of fact my major draw me pretty close to history as well. If I turned in a paper stating, this is how it is and who does not see that is an ignorant idiot (to save on textual apparatus), I guess I would not have to bother to submit that (and any further) paper. That is not a methodology historians are allowed to use. You believe what you believe, that is OK. But when you make some claim (or state conclusions of your research), you need to provide references to established sources (or primary sources resp.). I am just trying to help you with the methodology, which is frankly quite dubious at the moment.

    Don’t be afraid. It is OK to say: I do not know, but I believe so. Trust me, serves you and your credibility better.

    An example: I can say it is an obvious fact that Austria started driving on the right hand side when annexed by Nazi Germany and anyone who does not considered it as a fact is a grossly ignorant idiot. Which in fact says that: I am rude and arrogant, I was told by someone I do not want to disclose as his/her authority could be disputed, I have no knowledge of the subject, but that does not stop me from strongly believing or all of above. On the other hand, when challenged, I could say, I’ve read so (since I am too young/from too far away to have a personal experience) in a book by so and so, who is a historian with many publications on 20th century Central Europe. Or here (or this is how you can get to it) is a picture from Vienna 1938 before Anschluss and this is picture from the same year after being annexed.

    You do not have to spell out multiplication tables. But you do a lot better job pointing me to one when I doubt you saying 5×5=25 than saying your grossly ignorant and I won’t tell you how I got to learn my great knowledge of multiplication.

  68. Daniel says:

    I’m not sure why you are unwilling or unable to express yourself concisely, but a skimming of your latest comment suggests that it isn’t actually rich in content, so I won’t be making a closer reading.
    I have fairly little interest in bringing discussion to some point where you acknowledge that you’ve been silly. I simply want any reasonably visitor to this discussion to see as much.
    Cataloguing the recorded occasions when people have used swords, knives, pens, or somesuch to slash things in rejection would be like cataloguing the recorded occasions when people have stomped their feet in frustration. Such a catalogue would take significant effort to assemble, be expected to reveal nothing new, and draw virtually no attention except perhaps for occasional derision that anyone should have bothered to create it. Yet you demand that I go to the effort of creating or locating such a catalogue. My reward would be, uhm….

  69. xyz says:

    I reject (even if you were right) ___ is not the same as I forbid you to ___. This suggests you might be trying to mix several things together to seemingly validate your point. Why I am not surprised about unclear terminology where the methodology is heavily limping?

    You do not have to list all of them, just provide couple or few examples for reference. That is all I am asking for. Saying they are numerous without reference is basically saying: “I strongly believe in this, but I have no proof. Stop asking, I cannot give you any even if I wanted. I do not know, but I’ll try to use rhetorics in attempt to make my shortcoming look like yours.”

    Concise enough?

    Don’t understand: I did not read, but I still need to reply. Engaging ourselves in a fruitful monologue are we?

  70. Daniel says:

    Indeed rejection is not equivalent to forbidding, but the latter is effectively a subset of the former, whereas simply coming to an end is neither.
    As to your first question, you’re not surprised to “find” something that you merely infer for no better reason than you *want* it to be there.
    In answer to your final question: Plainly this isn’t a monologue, but you come closer to one (and indeed to soliloquy) through perverse verbosity, so that I now don’t do more than skim, and hence am not in a position to reply fully.

  71. xyz says:

    Really no need for (perverse) verbosity, couple (or so) examples of 1000-2000yrs (can be older, but this is bare minimum to qualify for millennia) use, just state the obvious, and we are done. Your point proven and me educated, it’s win-win. Or admit your statement to be a personal belief. My point proven, your methodology improved, and yet again win-win.

  72. Daniel says:

    Of course there’s no *need* for perverse verbosity; yet you’ve engaged in it. I don’t see helping you as a win, though.
    As to a few examples (as opposed to the citation that you once demanded), well, alleged scripture is slashed in I Jeremiah; Athena was said to have slashed a tapestry woven by Arachne; Valdemar literally slashed-up a parchment presenting a proposed peace treaty; Elizabeth slashed-up an ennobling patent before him upon whom it would have been bestowed.
    Now, please just go away, rather than pontificating any further.

  73. xyz says:

    I am sorry, based on my personal beliefs I assumed helping others is a common courtesy and desire in general own to people. My mistake.

    Very sloppy work indeed. Rejection (in particular) is by no means prohibition (in general). The latter is what we are looking for here. In particular from you somewhat vague references:

    – could not find any slashing whatsoever in the Book of Jeremiah, ch. 1. In fact was not much more successful with the rest of Jeremiah (using KJV, RSV and JSP tranlations loaded in my BibleTime), could have used a wrong synonym though. Or to be fare in Jer 34:8 there is one use of Hebrew verb כרת (wonder if this site’s system handles it) – (k-r-t) to cut (in this case to cut (make) the covenant).
    – Athena in the mythical story hardly wanted to say that tapestries are forbidden. The story goes more along the line she did not like the theme of this particular one.
    – Valdemar (whoever of the myriads of historical characters you have in mind) likely did not want to say that peace treaties are forbidden.
    – Elizabeth really wanted to say that ennobling patents are forbidden?

    Now my friend. Doing your homework would serve you better then going around stating your believes as obvious fact and calling people who challenge your dubious methodology ignorant, snidely unwilling, perverted… If nothing else, work on your manners. You do not have to be a great scientist and historian, but you can always be polite and that can get you a long way in life.

  74. Daniel says:

    I really won’t read these long, yammering entries of yours. I regard such persistent failure to be concise as either expressing passive-aggression or something akin to autism.

  75. xyz says:

    You fail to read a post, yet you cannot pass on “replying” to it extending your monologue further. Or what else would it be if you do not bother to engage in a conversation and just keep going on and on.

    Executive summary for those suffering from severe ADD:

    – You missed a mark by a lot talking about unrelated things, there was not a single historical occurrence of slashed sign/writing/whatever denoting a ban.
    – You trying to be offensive does not make you right, but shows you have a problem.
    – Be polite, work on your methodology, don’t present beliefs as facts (learn to distinguish between the two and make that difference in your presentation)… it will serve you better.

    Good luck!

  76. Daniel says:

    I fail to read your posts because, when I start to read them, it becomes apparent that they’re expressed with gross inefficiency. In this latest case, I got to the word “monologue”, and decided that you were going to waste still more time (with conjectures about my motives). I checked back, as it was possible that you’d stop writing like that. No such luck.

  77. xyz says:

    I see and bow to your vast superiority. If there is such a thing as reicanrnation, I want to be just like you in my next life: Shedding few but mighty words of pure wisdom… just like your blog posts. 😀

    I do not seize to be amazed, I’ve heard that today’s generation attention span is very short. I had no idea how bad it was though. You’ve made it to 17th word out of 123. Perhaps you could try a paragraph a day?

    Also you might want to work on your functional literacy. Nothing about your motives. Not even within the remaining 85% of my post.

    Since you do not have any facts nor are search for any, I think we’re done. I’ve conclusively shown you have no idea what you are talking about and just cannot distinguish between facts and beliefs.

    Final advice: for your own sake as well as sake of all the others: stay away from areas where personal judgment and believes are not obvious from hard facts (history, economy, philosophy, theology…). Besides not being nice and giving an impression of being arrogant which is never a plus, you should be fine going with one’s exclusive contribution (e.g. any form of art) or with cold hard facts (engineering, experimental physics, perhaps doctor of medicine).

    Again, you’re not reading at this point as your attention likely can’t take it, anyways: good luck!

  78. Daniel says:

    More logorrhoea, as I see. I’ve lost hope that you’ll write properly, and won’t continue checking.

  79. xyz says:

    😀 😀 😀

  80. Crow says:

    Someone probably said this before, but in the Netherlands where I live this really is a normal sign.

  81. el_monty says:

    I am European (from Spain), and I have seen this sign many times, but with the caption it becomes funny. That’s all you need really. Humour can come from anything.

  82. VanMora says:

    Hahaha we have these all in the NL, never thought it looked that funny because i know what it means. But now you mention it, its actually HILARIOUS!

  83. AB says:

    no life zone

  84. FrisianDude says:

    What, don’t non-Europeans have streets where no houses, people, balls and cars are allowed? 😮

  85. Irene says:

    Holy crap, quit yapping about this. The sign is funny even if you know its meaning, because the fact that it’s out of context lets you look at it in a new way.

    @ xyz & Daniel: you both need to stop trying to outdo each other using faux-academic language to get your point across. It just makes you sound like a twat, even though there’s a valid discussion going on underneath the nonsense. Just agree to disagree.

  86. Tashadan says:

    Well, there IS an equivalent, much more specific (and much less oddly so) American sign.

    That’ll teach them Europeans to do it the RIGHT way! No awkward slashes anywhere! Clear as glass! In ANY language that counts!

  87. Smile and Wave says:

    As an American teen, I got a laugh out of it because I’ve never seen anything like it here. Typically, a red slash over ANYTHING, regardless of the shape of the sign, means the action depicted is prohibited. I’ve seen it on circles, rectangles, etc. Didn’t realize it wasn’t internationally recognized as such, or that the shape of the sign really mattered as much as it does, but hey, you learn something new every day.

    I’m sure if I was a European seeing this, I wouldn’t find it too funny, but not every joke is funny for everyone. It’s all about the demographic. Maybe the picture should’ve been labeled, “Only funny in locations where this sign isn’t normal” but then someone would have to comment on how that was overkill, and condescending.

    One thing I have yet to see is a civilized discussion anywhere on the internet, that doesn’t include insults to others. That’ll be the day!

  88. Malake256 says:

    Well it’s funny to me (: and tht’s okay, anyone can laugh at anything. Make fun of my americannessness 🙂

  89. eli says:

    i took a picture and laughed too, the first time i saw that sign.

    a few people mentiond that the red slash through a sign means “end of” in europe. that’s right, both for when a restriction ends, or when a town ends.

    on the autobahn a red or black slash through the speed limit sign means “end of speed limit zone” meaning you can drive as fast as you like.

    if the red slash “no” symbol was international, then people would see the sign and interpret that driving 120 kph is not allowed.

    i was confused by the common “no” symbol in germany at first: it’s a red circle around something. a white circular sign with a red border prohibits whatever is pictured (a man for “do not enter” and a horse for “no horses”).

  90. HelenaTroy says:

    Killjoy was here ….

  91. Houdini says:

    hehe 🙂

    I’m form Europe and I did find the comment funny 🙂 – a little bit of the laugh was probably AT the one who came up with it, but nevertheless it was funny too ;).

    It is quite a normal sign here on this side of the ocean, and yes the shape and color of the sign do mater and we know how to read them and usually need a lot less specific signs to get the meaning 😉

    Oh 🙂 just something about the comment from eli – Germany I think is the only country in the EU that does not have a speed limit on the “autobahn”. In other countries a slash trough a speed limit means “end of the speed limit zone, you can now drive at the max speed allowed for this type of road”.
    The speed limits vary form country to country and when you cross a border there is a sign informing you of the speed limits of that country.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s