Mini-doper rants

The BBQ Pit
1

General, small complaints about doper behaviors.

  1. If you want someone to click on your link, say what it’s a link to. If you don’t want someone to click on your link, don’t link to it.

  2. When you’re replying to a thread and you say, “I can’t BELIEVE no one has said X!” you look like an idiot. No one said X because your taste sucks, okay?

  3. More annoying than someone not taking advice is someone giving advice when it’s not wanted.

  4. This.

  5. If you post in a thread to say you’re not interested in a thread, I’d be happy if you were banned and then shot. Or perhaps the other way around.

2

Rants about Mini-dopers?

I hate the way they got treated by Snow White. She so should have married Doc Doper.

3

2a: Starting a thread with the title ‘What, no X thread yet?’ or its variants.

4

THANK YOU! I hate hate hate “This.” It’s right up there with “IAWTC.” If you have nothing to contribute beyond “what (s)he said,” don’t.

ETA: Yes, I understand the irony here. My point was to suggest that I’d prefer to read your opinions written in your own words, rather than “this,” even if someone has already posted what you were going to, word for word.

5

And its even more moronic cousin:

+1

6

I don’t get this. How many links to spam, malware, popups. rickrolls and other such dickery do we actually get here? IME, hardly any at all. I have no problem clicking on unlabeled links in most cases; on the rare occasion they turn out to be one of the above, they get reported and I move on.

7

I’m not going to number mine, because I don’t know if anyone else shares this peeve, or I’m just an idiosyncratic grump. But the ever more frequent “I saw what you did there,” in response to someone’s attempt at wit or cleverness, sets my teeth on edge.

8

It takes two seconds to say, “Here’s a link to a video of X.” YouTube and imdb links are the worst offenders, since there’s nothing in the link text to say what it’s a link to. I don’t need to see the imdb page for Casablanca for the 1000th time. Say “Casablanca.” It’s not hard. Most of the time, the link isn’t even necessary. Why force people to click on a link in order to follow the conversation?

9

This one I sort of understand. It’s because, invariably, some lazy douche who can’t be bothered to Google for himself is going to come along in 2 or 3 posts and ask for a cite or a reference of some kind.

10

Well, I’m sure the people who post unlabeled links didn’t ask you for your advice on how to post them to your liking, so I guess we can cross off #3.

11

You’re embarrassing.

12

You sure told me.

13

I think I’d rather annoy the lazy douche than force people to click on a link in order to know what’s going on.

It’s the same philosophy as expecting an OP to do more than post a link and then say “Well?”

Links plus commentary are good. Links without anything are annoying.

14

Quoting the whole damn post you’re replying to. Extra douche points if you’re the first to reply and the OP was long.

15

Lordy, yes. The whole-post quote, unless the whole post is basically one line, and the non-quote where no one knows who you’re talking to can both be aggravating.

16

I Am World Trade Center?

17

I Agree With This Comment. Lazy internet lulzspch.

18

People do that on Fark all the time, dunno if it originated there or not. There’s even a graphic of Fry from Futurama that goes with it people post up there.

19

I must confess I don’t get the hatred for “This”. It seems like a logical extension of an everyday use of the word to an electronic format.

Q: What are you wearing to the party?
A: [Holds up suit] “This.”

Q: What will you be eating for lunch?
A: [Points at hamburger] “This.”

Q: What do you think about the issue?
A:
[Quotes poster with whom he agrees]
“This.”

Sure, “me-too” posts aren’t the most useful things in the world, but most of the anti-This folks seem to agree that such posts are fine as long as they don’t include the hated T-word, so that can’t be it. Is it just the word itself? Would a post that included no quotes and said “I fully agree with Poster Bob’s comment and have nothing further to add” be acceptable?

As for my contribution, there are really only three things I’d add to this list, and two of them are essentially the same thing.

#1 is starting a post with “Um, you do know…”, and #2 is pretty much any use of the :rolleyes: smiley at all. Both of these fall under the general heading of “making sure your audience is aware that you’re not just stating your point or making an argument, you’re being a smug dickbag about it.” They’re far from the only two ways to express this wholly unnecessary sentiment, but they’re easily the most common.

#3 is making the obvious joke. A perfect example would be to reply to this post by quoting the above paragraph and saying “Um, you do know that [whatever the fuck], right? :rolleyes:”, or quoting this part and saying “The obvious joke!” Nigh-inevitably, there’ll be something thrown in to let you know that the poster is reveling in just how terribly clever they are, be it a :D, a ;), or a “You HAD to know someone was going to do that!”. It’s not clever, it’s not funny, and unlike board-specific inside jokes it doesn’t even have any claim to being endearing.

I have to think that that last is what I’ve come to term an Escort Mission; ie, something that even though no one on Earth actually likes it (and the evidence bears this out), everyone continues to do for no discernible reason beyond a general sense that it’s expected. Am I wrong about this? Does anybody out there think genuinely find this practice amusing?

20

You know what? I don’t really know. It feels very smugly contrived, but I don’t think I could explain why.

One annoyance with it is it’s usually coupled with a whole-post quote, but I’m not bothered by someone quoting most of a post and saying “I agree” or the like.

If it felt natural, I don’t think it would bother me. But it hasn’t been around since the beginning of days, which makes it feel like it’s an attempt to be trendy instead.