I see this constantly–someone out of necessity gives a thread a breif title, then elaborates in the original post. Then follow dozens or hundreds of replies that do not fit the criteria for the OP, showing that responders didn’t bother to read the actual post before replying to the title. The latest example is from CS, where someone asks about a fictional character meeting a real-life person who isn’t being played by an actor. What follows is–predictably–list after list of characters meeting a real-life character who was played by an actor. This is just one example, but you likely could dig up hundreds of others if you try.
tldr
Am I the first?
I, too, hate coyotes, and applaud the OP. Whoever thought taking a wild animal (with millennia of non-domesticated instincts) into a city would work? Let alone a home.
Forget the debate about misogyny, this is hands down the thing that drives me barmiest at SDMB. It happens every single time that an OP contains more info than the thread title.
Didn’t you read the OP?
The OP is right, charter schools are decreasing literacy.
I don’t know, man. I think that designer babies are inevitable - once you have the first few out there, it’ll be an arms race.
Did not read the thread.
tldr
Am I the first?
This shit happens a lot and it’s annoying. Everyone makes mistakes and I have certainly misread the OP a time or two and fucked up. There are a small handful of people who do it regularly to the extent that you can tell with a certainty that they are going to show up with something off topic, especially if they can shoe in something from their personal agenda.
I have a long convoluted story about the lil’wrekker that would fit right in the thread title. Wanna hear it?
What’s that got to do with the OP’s disgust with high school academic decathlon?
While I understand the frustration, I would not assume people didn’t real the OP in that case. The clarification is a single following sentence fragment that can be easily misread. And, well, the title could be better: “Fictional characters who met real people playing themselves.” Or even just “Real people playing themselves in fictional works.”
Yes, sometimes people seem to reply to titles without reading the OP. And I agree this is frustrating. But it’s usually not nearly every poster in the thread. In that case, I would call the OP unclear.
(Heck, as far as I can tell, only two posters got it right, and both acted like it was a special case, rather than the only two that actually fit the OP.)
If I were you, I’d go into the thread and clarify, rather than Pit them.
What’s this about coyotes meeting fictional characters?
Regards,
Shodan
Sure, knock yerself out. I won’t read it, but have your fun.
Totally agree with the OP. Without making a joke (that has been done many times and better than I could manage)some people seem to be in such a hurry to tell their view they rarely read the previous posts (and I put my hand up).
You’re still not getting it. QEII didn’t “play herself” in Misery and none of the US Presidents did in Forrest Gump, the plot just made it clear the characters met them by using methods other than getting an actor to play them (whether the actor is playing him/herself or not)
I see how you are.
My recipe for that doesn’t include cinnamon. Just sayin’.
Hmm, from that thread’s OP:
“Excluding the genre of alternative history, actors and actresses playing famous people, and famous people doing cameos in movies or TV shows”
BUT
"And there are all the VIPs shown, thanks to CGI and manipulation of historical footage, in Zelig and Forrest Gump. "
So you claim using, eh call it ‘repurposed imagery’ of an real historical personage in a new context (like JFK in Gump) is NOT a ‘virtual’ (ugh, that overused word) cameo of that person in that context? Me thinks the OP’er didn’t get his own thread constraints…
Really? We gotta do this thing about handshakes again? It’s not even the right month for that.