Based on a pit thread I don’t want to link to (but the software def wants to link to), I thought of what might be a fun game. Here’s how it goes:
Poster 1: Post an acronym, preferably one that most folks know.
Poster 2: Intentionally misunderstand the acronym, and post a response to the misunderstanding, without explaining what you thought it was.
Poster 3: Identify the misunderstanding, and then post a new acronym.
Example:
Poster 1: CIA
Poster 2: Sure, but that psychotic doll will probably show up tomorrow.
Poster 3: Chucky Is Absent! Anyway, ROFL.
I think this’ll be more fun if, instead of posting your intentional misunderstanding, you give enough clues in your response that a third poster gets to guess what it was. Does that make sense? Look at poster 2 in the example.
(Unless you’re doing some super meta intentional misunderstanding of the “intentional misunderstandings of acronyms” game, in which case WTG)
You are apparently having a Transient Ischemic Attack that has caused you to misunderstand the rules, so I will gloss over the fact that you have posted as both Poster 2 and Poster 3.
I do so love him as he runs on his little wheel with his chubby cheeks!
[ It’s probably worth noting that the rules maybe are a bit confusing. The way I envision what you meant, after the initial post there will be no “Poster 1” posts, we will just be going back and forth between poster 2 and poster 3 roles, correct?
deliberate misunderstanding of XYZ
identify misunderstanding of XYZ, new acronym ABC
deliberate misunderstand of ABC
identify misunderstanding of ABC, new acronym DEF
etc
[Yep, that’s right. Poster 3 offers a new acronym, and then the next poster -4?- misunderstands it, and then 5 explains the misunderstanding and offers a new one, and then 6 misunderstands the new one, and so on.
I think the fun shows up in the guessing what the misunderstanding was, not just in the misunderstanding, so the alternation should happen.]
[ Yes - I was trying to make the early misunderstandings very easy, so we get into the flow of things. As they get more obscure, I think it will get very entertaining. ]
I understood the three-poster format but wanted to test-hop a different game format. Which I then didn’t actually answer correctly according to my own subversive imaginary rules.
In the variation I imagined, a poster should decode the misunderstanding from 2 posts above, misunderstand the new acronym from the post immediately above, and propose a new one. So each poster and each post gets to play all 3 roles involving 3 different acronyms.
That may or may not be simple enough for us to keep straight either. Sorry to hijack.
This is a playful, yet effective way to highlight the problem with posters employing rarely-used initialisms without first explaining what they stand for.
Your OP asks for well-known initialisms presumably because one needs to know what it stands for in order to make or understand the joke.
That’s just a teensy-weensy bit like the notion that one needs to know what a given initialism stands for in order to understand the post.
It’s really not, and if you think it is, you’re def not getting it. If you’re not interested in playing, that’s cool, but I’d rather you not turn this into a fake agreement with your pet peeve–a peeve I do not share at all.
Well, I’m probably not playing this right, but: I still take a momentary program check when someone says “LOL”, because my family used it in email from about 1980 on, with its original meaning.
