Think nothing of it.
Indeed you have.
No.
Well, you’ve only replied to one post here.
Get a grip.
I also hate it when people don’t attribute their quotes. If it’s not obvious from the context, as in "NoClueBoy said:
which proves Adama is a, if not the, bomb, " then tell us who said it, one way or another.
I should make it clear that I was not complaining in the least about cat or dog threads in MPSIMS. It’s fine if cat or dog owners want to post about their pets to others who might be interested. Anybody who is not interested can just bypass that thread.
What I was complaining about was threads in GQ about cats or dogs. For example, something like “Do cats eat fish in the wild?” Many people will stop in to mention how much their own kitty likes salmon, and add nothing else to the factual discussion. Those threads can stay on the first page forever, even after the factual question has been answered.
On another thread we had on pet peeves recently someone mentioned being annoyed by this. I do it myself all the time. First, it’s much easier to quote individual posters and respond to them separately rather than doing a bunch of cut and paste. Second, I often will think of another point after posting my first response. I’m certainly not going to refrain from posting additional information just because I happened to be the last one to post.
Also, I have missed when people have replied to me in the same post they are replying to someone else.
I got another one! People have mentioned folks who say, “I can’t believe no one has mentioned [whatever] yet!” Yeah, they’re annoying. But am I the only one who’s noticed that virtually every time anyone does that, it has been mentioned? If you’re going to post to a long thread, read the damn thing first. Heck, I’d be sympathetic if you posted, “Okay, I admit I haven’t read the whole thread yet, but has anyone mentioned [whatever]? I think it’s easily her best work.” But don’t be all condescending about how no one’s mentioned whatever it is you’re talking about if we actually have.
(Seriously, have you guys noticed this? I think the phrase "I can’t believe nobody mentioned . . . " is some sort of magical incantation that causes a previous post to be inserted mentioning whatever it is, because every single time anyone posts that, it’s already been mentioned in the thread.)
My cat is sooo adorable and sooooo smart that she got sick of that joke within a week. I think everyone whose IQ rises above the single digits is tired of that joke by now. I’ve gotten so sick of it that it nearly drove me to murder.
I’ve seen people complain about that, but it doesn’t bother me. I feel a little dumb when I do it, but I do it sometimes nonetheless. I really only notice if I see someone posting five or six times in a row, and then what I feel is amused, not annoyed. You can reduce the need to do that if you use a browser with tabs, since you can compose your separate replies and merge them into one message before posting.
Actually, I think you can call someone’s argument dumb outside the pit, but you can’t call them dumb. (Don’t quote me on that, though.) I tend to agree that rolleyes seems awfully inflammatory for outside the pit. But niggling legalism permitting people to break the rules in spirit if not in the letter seems to appeal to the moderators.
I have seen that one and it does make the poster look dumb.
The “I can’t believe no one has mentioned this” is bad enough, but when it was the 5th post and the new poster is the 63rd I find it dumbfounding. Now just posting the same thing from 76th post as the 240th is not too bad if it does not have the condescending lead in.
Jim {All numbers picked were arbitrary and used solely as examples}{Yes, I will continue to use these tiny fonts, sorry if it bugs you, it is my style, hopefully you will live with it, whoever you are.}
You’re welcome, but don’t feel bad.
Kitty threads- I read em, and occassionally hit the link, but so far I have resisted the tempation to post my own cat pics. They do get a bit much, but hardly up to the level of “pet peeves”. 
I agree with Colibri about pet ancedotes that don’t add much to the GQ thread.
I don’t care much for the super-parsed reply. MEGO (That’s Mine Eyes Glaze Over).
Excalibre- you are absolutely right about the “I can’t believe no one has mentioned”- it does seem to be only used where someone has already mentioned, now that you mention it. odd.
gabriela, Ok by me if you post a couple time sin a row- your contributions are usually pretty good, so it doesn’t bother me.
I don’t think there’s a remedy for my peeve, as it involves guests starting threads that have been **Done To Death ** - “What does your username mean?” or “When was your first time?” or “What does <insert acronym/abbreviation here> mean?” Since they can’t search, they can’t know that they’re contributing to my twitch.
What we need is a filter that will stop such OPs before they get started with a message and a link. How hard could it be to invent that??
After all, what are we paying for here?!?! <---- That’s another peeve - people thinking their annual dues entitle them to something special. When I pay $25 for a magazine subscription, I don’t expect every article to be exactly what I wanted to know right at that moment. Nor do I think my subscription here buys me anything other than the right to be a member here. Now, if I was paying $500/month or something, I would look at it differently, but $15 per year (yeah, I know my share is less since I’m an oldie) figures to just over 4 cents a day. I expect we walk past that much cash on the street on a regular basis.
You betcha. I’ve got your back. I mean their front.
err :rolleyes: that was my point. That by adding that preface you are sneaking in calling someone dumb - not their argument.
vs.
Well Excalibre, what I was trying to say, poorly, was that by adding that preface you are sneaking in calling someone dumb - not their argument.
(the first part is meant both as a joke post and to be illustrative and not meant to be inflammatory or demeaning)
The trigger-happy googlefreaks annoy me: “I don’t know anything about this subject, but in my rush to be first to answer I’ll just google it and post the first dumb-arsed damn link I find as if it were the word of God.” Repeat offenders, you know who are.
This seems to happen with a lot with eytomology or language usage questions, where there’s a lot of ill-informed or apocryphal bullshit floating around anyway, and it’s bloody annoying: if you don’t know the answer, then keep quiet - 30 seconds “research” doesn’t cut it, and you don’t get points for being first but wrong.
What’s really funny to me (on this 3rd page), is that the “I can’t believe no one has mentioned <blank> yet” peeve was mentioned on the first page of this thread.
Except I made explicit reference to those prior mentions, and added to it by describing a specific subset of those situations. It’s not really the same thing at all.
Still funny. Ought to be made into some sort of Law, like the correcting spelling law by that Guadere person.
The I Can’t Believe No One Law: Whenever someone adds a point prefaced with this phrase, the point will have already been mentioned by no less than thre previous posters.
Which I just did with this post, even tho intentional. As did What Exit and DrDeth
Gets funnier with each next post about it. (Maybe that’s just me…)
The GoogleBot Poster peeve has already been mentioned, but it doesn’t seem to be as bad as it once was. I remember it being a HUGE problem in the pre pay2post world. One bright spot about that type of post, tho, is it often leads to specatular meltdowns. We saw some awesome ones in the past, and at least one not too long ago.
Speaking of meltdowns, have we mentioned yet the bandwagon jumpers? IOW, those who wait until about the 3rd or 4th page to chime in with the majority. Maybe that really is how you feel, but chiming in at that late date makes one look like a, well, like a jerk. (Yeah, we probably have already mentioned it…)
Or, how about the inuendo posters? Those who try to cleverly hide their jabs (usually in GD) by word play. Note I didn’t say cleverly try to hide, but try to cleverly hide… Because it’s not clever. We can all see right thru it. It’s one of the things that makes GD so tedious anymore. Seems like we used to actually have dsicussions and debates about things. Now it’s often just a bunch of posturing and semantic pissing. (All the good debates are in the Pit.)
Did you do that on purpose?
Nope. See how funny things get?
Yeah, usually in post 3! How is it that people can miss it? And then even more bandwidth is eaten up by two different people pointing it out, the disbelieving poster going :smack: , and the person who also mentioned X (in post 53, but without making an issue of it) saying “Nobody reads my posts, wah.”
Oh, and very occasionally, the OP says “And we’ll leave out X because [I already know about it/it’s outside the parameters/it’s been done to death]” and still someone says, “How could you possibly leave out X? DUH!”
— And people who tell an incomplete story. Like so.
— And “Yea, verily, I got a paper cut and it hurteth” Pit threads. Your problem is not made any more interesting by that fracking pseudo-middle English. And it’s usually something too MPSIMSy for the Pit anyway.
— Which brings me to a non-peeve: the recent policy of moving pointless Pits into MPSIMS. Thank you, mods, for cleaning up the Pit. (Or keeping it dirty.)
— Back to peeves: People who don’t use names when describing a situation that involves multiple players. Don’t give me “A did this; B did that and C did this other thing.” And it’s worse, not better, when you tell about your sister The Bitch, and your sister’s friend The Whore and your sister’s daughter The Beast From Hell. Just use sitcom names. Sister is Rachel, sister’s friend is Monica and daughter is Phoebe. And like that.
— People who fly off the handle without asking for clarification. If a comment seems really outrageous, stop and consider the fact that you might have read it wrong. Make sure the other poster is saying what you think they’re saying before you open up both barrels.
— Pit OPs that consist of a link to a story about, usually, child abuse, or sometimes rape, murder or other abuse of an adult, and nothing else except an assertion that society is doomed. We know that children get abused, and sometimes killed. We know people get murdered. We know that women, and sometimes men, get raped. And yet the world rolls along, and a lot of things are actually better than they were back in the day (which is often the agenda of the OP: this never would have happened when THEY were young). What is the purpose of just stating that a bad thing happened? Just to show how much you care about the chiiiiiiiildren?
(And also, I wish these doomsayers would be mindful of the fact that many people here are parents, and are already aware that bad things can happen to children, and don’t need this stuff crammed down their throats.)
— And people who post “Look at this!” OPs about breaking news, without including any identifying details. Most recent example is the Mark Foley scandal. I’m not sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the reason there were multiple threads is because two of the three OPers didn’t use his name. So the threads didn’t turn up in a search, causing others to assume they were the first to post on it. (And yes, I’ve done this a time or two. Which is why I don’t do it any more.)
And here’s a new one: People who post jokes disguised as legit quotes. If it would be funny on its own, let it stand on its own. Don’t make me yell, “Cite?”
My pet peeve concerns IMHO “what are your favorite…” type threads (like this very one here). Not the threads themselves, but the fact that by the time I come upon them, they are almost always several pages long and any contribution that I might have made has already been posted at least once.
I don’t want to post something as vacuous as “Yeah, what he said”, and I always try to read through the entire thread to make sure I’m not guilty of the “I can’t believe nobody has said…” blunder, so I often wind up not posting at all.
Of course, I am the first person in this three-page thread to make this particular point. I guess this is the exception that proves the rule.