Are you repressing me?
Help! Help! I’m being repressed!
Come see the violence inherent in the system!
Just by going what was quoted in the OP, Turble could have answered the question appropiately if he had put why he felt it was annoying or not worth the effort.
Sorry. I’ll go back to being a good little sheeple.
I fight authority, authority always wins
Well, I fight authority, authority always wins
As others have said, it was not threadshitting. The OP clearly asked if using Twitter was “worth the effort.” He stated, in an arguably snarky way, that it was not.
About 75% of all threads that involve Trump are derailed far worse than this.
I suppose I should chime in.
Part of my OP was, in fact, constructed to help me decide if I should even bother with Twitter. If it is “worth the effort”.
Turble’s response indicated that it is not.
I didn’t find his Twitter-is-for-twits wording at all offensive; took it more as an attempt at humor.
Threadshitting?
I don’t know if it matters, but I don’t feel the least bit shat upon.
mmm
As others have said, it WAS threadshitting. You don’t get to define the term your own special way, or have the final word on pronouncing whether or not a post fits that term. You may disagree, but you aren’t the final arbiter.
But my point was not whether or not it was actual threadshitting (about which I’m ambivalent). My point was that the warning was for threadshitting, not for insulting a poster. In other words the post I was responding to was silly because it wasn’t relevant. I guess you missed that part.
Not a warning. Just saying.
There has never been a rule that a poorly supported but on point answer is threadshitting. Which is utterly unsurprising, since a merely poor answer has nothing to do with the entire concept of threadshitting.
Mere allcaps isn’t quite sufficient for me to accept your bald assertion. Use a slightly bigger font next time and then I’ll be convinced.
Upthread I parsed out the definition from the rules as to what constitutes threashitting, and after doing so reached the conclusion that what the OP did wasn’t threadshitting. You baldly assert to the contrary with no reference to the actual defintiion, yet have the temerity to assert that it is other people who are trying to define the term their own special way.
When come back, bring a reasoned argument.
Based on my recollection ofthe last time you were mistaken about the meaning of threadshitting, there isn’t anything anyone can add this time around that is going to make it any clearer to you.
Actually, he’s right. This time.
Basing your comment on your recollection is understandable, I must say. Actually going to that thread and reading it would be a little to painful for you, I agree. Having your ass handed to you is never a great experience.
But please, do tell me once again how the meaning of threadshitting is what you think it is rather than what the actual rules say. And feel free to explain to me again how - if those rules don’t suit you - they are merely guidance and how, for the True Straight Dope, we should defer to your opinion instead.
Here’s a good rule of thumb; when PM agrees with me, either we are living in an alternative universe, or I’m actually right
Not only did you not hand me my ass in that thread you are now getting yours handed to you, again, about the very same subject, in this one.
In that case, or this one, did the moderation staff here change their ruling based on your misunderstanding of what threadshitting means? No. So simple reality nulls and voids any further arguments you’d care to make. The reality is that the moderation staff here - you know, the ones who make and enforce the rules here - didn’t reverse the calls of threadshitting in that case or this one. So whether you agree or not, it was by definition threadshitting under the rules of this message board.
The mods called it threadshitting. The posts were modded for threadshitting. People who don’t understand what threadshitting is argued about it, and the decisions that they were threadshitting stood because, well, they were threadshitting.
Threadshitting can’t be boiled down to a simple to follow example in a rule you dug up somewhere. That is just one example given as a general guideline as I tried to explain to you in the previous thread. Recognizing threadshitting is a matter of tone, context, intent -which sometimes is a judgement call by a mod, and finally, and really least important, a word for word example of it given in some rule you found.
In the previous case that you also incorrectly argued about, it was threadshitting plain and simple. There is no other side of that argument. It was blatant.
In this case I can agree it was borderline for some of the reasons discussed herein, none of which have anything to do with your objections which are based on a complete misunderstanding of what the term means. If you need to read a rule to understand what threadshitting is you are missing the bigger picture.
In this case if they had just said they don’t care to use Twitter without the snark it might have passed. Or if they had shown a little snark toward Twitter users but also provided a more helpful answer, that might have passed. But the combination of the dismissive tone, lack of content, and snark made it threadshitting. This is now the second time I’ve explained it to you. I hope there won’t be a third.
I believe this is troubling. I don’t use Twitter but if I had a comment that said “I don’t use Twitter as I have been told you can get a lot of viruses through it” (I haven’t) - does that mean I should not be posting that in the thread? Can you point me to the rule which clearly states that you have no reason to post in a thread if you have no personal experience of the topic?
People who are embarrassingly wrong very rarely do. What you are saying is, they didn’t admit they were wrong so they were right.
Do you have any idea how bizarre it is to describe the definition of “Threadshitting” in the Glossary written by the guy who was IIRC at the time the administrator of this board, and which as far as I know has never been updated, as “a rule you dug up somewhere”? Any idea at all? Because damn, boy.
Is it? Who appointed you to lay this down? And even if you are right, what you seem to be saying is “I don’t know what threadshitting is, but I know it when I see it” which is a seriously shitty form of rule.
As to handing you your ass, you are confusing your ability to assert something over and over backed by no form of reasoning, no citations, and no sense, with my ability to make reference to the relevant definition and parse it word by word. None of which you have challenged beyond saying “the rule means yanno, whatever” and “the official definition of a word for the purposes of this messageboard is, just, like, your opinion, man!” - both of which are responses so pathetic and/or outright bizarre as to be beneath contempt.
What you’ve been handed is your ass, whether you are too stubborn to admit it or not.
Moderator Note
That’s enough ass-handing for one thread.
Focus on the topic at hand instead of just bickering at each other, please.
This does give rise to the concept of a new job-function: ass-hander. As in, “I’m a world-class ass-hander.”
Ass-handing, when done properly, can be beautiful thing.
I’d never really thought that metaphor through. If someone is trying to hand me my ass, I’m probably bleeding out and am in no shape to reach out to accept it. And what’s their motivation, anyhow, for handing it to me? Are they gloating? Trying to help?
It’s pretty horrifying all around.