[QUOTE=DVsickgirlDV]
I hate the posts that are like “I have an English/History/Political Science degree… what can I do with it?!”
[/QUOTE]
I don’t mind those because they’re just threads, I can always skip them. Definitely not as annoying as a lot of the other ones in this thread as they are embedded in threads that you’re already reading.
[QUOTE=Freddy the Pig]
Another thing: People who post WAG’s in GQ ten minutes after a question goes up. It’s one thing if an obscure question has been languishing for hours; maybe no one knows and a WAG will at least get some discussion going. But what is the point, ten minutes after someone posts a question about biology, and knowing there are bio experts who routinely post on this Board, of saying, “Duh, I don’t know, WAG, but I think lactation originated in fishes”.
[/QUOTE]
YES! Sometimes if I haven’t gotten to a bio thread right away, I’ll spend half my time correcting lameass guesses from people who dozed off in seventh-grade Biology class.
Even worse are the ones who bring this stuff up AFTER THE CORRECT ANSWER HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN.
That goes for other subjects too. In GQ, unless you actually know something about the subject, wait until it’s about to slide off page 1 before you start to offer guesses.
[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer]
Constant squirrel abuse = repeated, albeit unpredictable, non sequiturs to amuse the poster (and not necessarily anyone else). It often involves appending short statements at the end of a post in the smallest possible font, which, bizarrely, draws more attention to itself than posting at regular size would. People who do that are jerks.
And yes, I just made that up.
[/QUOTE]
Hey, jeez, sorry. Is it really that bad?
[QUOTE=Ghanima]
I’m feeling rather sheepish because I committed so many of these my first couple of months on the boards.
[/QUOTE]
Only first couple of months? Try first ten years on the board.
[QUOTE=pravnik]
…They’re not doing it because it’s “funny.” They doing to annoy you, and you being annoyed is funny.
[/QUOTE]
Doncha love human nature? 
My biggest peeve is a request for a citation when the material in question is either readily available given the most cursory search, or, Og forbid, a passing familiarity with recently published material in major news outlets. Perhaps I’m being less than charitable, but I often find it difficult to believe that the motivation for the request is anything other than to waste the time of the target of the request, perhaps in the hope of preventing them from offering further insightful contributions to the thread.
I can’t seem to shake my feeling that cites are often requested just to waste an opponent’s time when the requestor is already fully aware of the material that will likely be cited.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Posters who only respond to certain posters.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah. I’ve been in threads where someone asks a question or requests an opinion, and the OP’er ignores some posters (who’ve given legitimate responses) yet converses merrily with others.
It’s a bit like what PinkFreud said, about not being acknowledged when you’ve answered a question, but different.
Also, when the OP involves a personal dilemma and people keep posting long after the dilemma has been worked out, and the OP has even said everything’s okay or they’ve seen the light or whatever. Sorry you didn’t get to weigh in, but when the discussion’s over, it’s over. It shouldn’t take a thread closing to keep people from offering advice or beating someone up.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
Post parsing is a virtual guarantee I’ll skip the post entirely.
.
[/QUOTE]
Do you mean when a poster replies to a previous thread, and breaks it up so they can address several points in it? If so, what’s wrong with that? I think it’s very helpful and avoids misunderstandings.
It’s when they do it sentence fragment by sentence fragment that it gets annoying. But it’s also human nature…what are you going to do? Most people just need to grow a little bit thicker skin.
As for the “doing what they asked you not to”… guilty. The inner 5 year old in all of us just screams to puncture some pompous asshole who bitches about our personal posting style. Sometimes you can contain it, sometimes you can’t. 
AuntiePam, I hear you! The number of threads around where someone gives a correct, proper answer, only to be ignored until someone else says it, is a large one. Put that together with the thread where everybody swore they didn’t have anybody on their “ignore” list and you have the definition of “cognitive dissonance.”
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Hey, jeez, sorry. Is it really that bad?
[/QUOTE]
Dude, I was only naming sins I myself am guilty of.
Did I mention calling everyone “Dude”? That’s so obnoxious.
[QUOTE=An Arky]
One thing that annoys me is when a fairly straightforward question is asked in GQ, is answered in short order, but people keep posting in it, so it sticks like a barnacle in the New Posts search results.
[/QUOTE]
Amen. Sports threads are the worst for this. You can’t ask a question about the balk rule without half the world chiming in with unrelated stories about the 1944 St. Louis Browns.
And another thing: People who say they want “just the facts” on things that are matters of opinion. You know, like this: “I’m not interested in a debate, I just want historical facts: Which branch of Christianity sticks most closely to the Bible?”
Posters who are the first reply to the OP, and quote the entire OP. Why?
Posters who say an artist…
“Doesn’t the chops”
”She butchered it”
“He can’t act”
Those expressions should only be used by people in the entertainment industry.
And speaking of the Café Society, what is up with this hipper than thou stuff? My blood boils when someone starts a thread to give advice to us un-hip types about what music to listen to. Go do it to yourself!
Correcting posters spelling, grammar, etc (fragment)
Hey Professor, other people probably notice errors too. But they’re courteous and let it be. Posters who act like wannabe third grade teachers lack tact and consideration. Particularly when the poster says, “this just bothers me so much”; “I just have to point this out.” No you don’t.
But I do love it when someone corrects the corrector.
“How could a person be so stupid to commit suicide?” ‘
“How could a person be so stupid to get hooked on drugs?”
Sometimes, believe it or not, other factors may be involved.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
I’d like to take this opportunity to send a shout out to all the staunch opponents of using contrived TWOP-style nicknames in the Survivor threads. I find them overly cutesy and wholly unnecessary. Keep up the good fight.
[/QUOTE]
This one bugs me, too. The silly, contrived nicknames are bad enough, but I’ve seen a creeping use of the “Adjective ! Name” kind of nicknames starting suddenly. I really hate that.
“So, Fishing!Yul caught a bunch of fish…”
“And Running!Ozzy was running down the beach…”
Ugh. Stop it now.
[QUOTE=Freddy the Pig]
Amen. Sports threads are the worst for this. You can’t ask a question about the balk rule without half the world chiming in with unrelated stories about the 1944 St. Louis Browns.
[/QUOTE]
Any GQ thread with any reference to dogs or cats also is pretty bad. They end up going on forever with people posting long anecdotes about the habits of their kitty.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Caricci: Could you please rephrase your post, I am not sure of your meaning. I am not teasing, I really am not sure what you were saying.
Jim
[/QUOTE]
Well, I see that I left out a word in my post about people talking about boards and blogs about SDMB. Is that the post you mean?
What I mean is, it blows my mind and annoys me that people have messageboards (and blogs) to discuss a message board. What is the term? “Snark board” I think. I feel like it’s the epitome of geekdom to have a board to talk about a board.
[QUOTE=silenus]
I think this was a reference to the Snark Boards, where people too lame for the Dope hang out and jealously snipe at their betters.
[/QUOTE]
And looky here, I missed this post, no doubt committing a pet peeve act. Yes, silenus is exactly right. Thank you.
A little secret? I have a doper friend with whom I might IM about the dope once in awhile. But it’s private and doesn’t involve any jealous sniping.
[QUOTE=Caricci]
Well, I see that I left out a word in my post about people talking about boards and blogs about SDMB. Is that the post you mean?
What I mean is, it blows my mind and annoys me that people have messageboards (and blogs) to discuss a message board. What is the term? “Snark board” I think. I feel like it’s the epitome of geekdom to have a board to talk about a board.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, I understand that one now. **Silenus ** had translated for me earlier.
I cannot defend them and I cannot say what I think of them as that is against SDMB board policy. But Google ‘Snark’ and ‘Straightdope’ and hold your nose.
Jim
[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer]
:
Did I mention calling everyone “Dude”? That’s so obnoxious.
[/QUOTE]
Mea Culpa.
BiblioCat & Ellis Dee. I agree completely. This isn’t TWOP, thankgawd.
[QUOTE=kevja]
Sometimes, other dudes may be interested in similar advice or answers. So even if the OP is happy, it doesn’t mean the thread has to stop. It can mean that, sure. It all depends.
Colibri- I agree completly about GQ questions. Of course, we don’t always agree on what is the right answer, but not every Biology question has just one Right Answer.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Mea Culpa.
BiblioCat & Ellis Dee. I agree completely. This isn’t TWOP, thankgawd.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve spoken to you before about trying to take credit for MY sins. Do it again and I’ll kick your ass with your own foot.