Time and time again in pit threads, someone will post something along the lines of:
‘waiting for the dems/republicans/zealots/athiests/usual suspects to step in and say something stupid/get all defensive/whatever.’
Why the fuck do people feel the need to do this. Often it’s their only contribution to the thread at that point, just an ‘oh, I know those crazy fanatics on the other side will come in here and act dumb, and I can’t wait.’
Well, cut it out.
It’s hypocritical. You’re accusing people of being blindly reactionary, and yet you’re reacting to something that hasn’t even been said yet.
If all you can say is that the people who haven’t even said anything yet about the issue are going to say something stupid, you’re doing nothing but personally flaming someone, and not adding anything at all. Not only that, but you’re flaming someone, who, if I may say again, isn’t even part of the conversation. They’re not even involved! They haven’t opened their mouths even!
So, if you want to be an asshole and flame someone, then start a thread for it, don’t throw ad hominem attacks into a thread at random, attacking someone ***WHO MAY NOT EVEN BE READING THE FUCKING THREAD, LET ALONE POSTING IN IT! ***
[ul]
[li]I tend to agree; it is nothing more than a craven variation of the “pulls up a lawn chair” post.[/li][li]Hey! You’re from my old hometown! How are things in Burlington?[/li][/ul]
Eonwe, what would be even more impressive is if you could, for example, link to where this has happened and, even more impressively, where the cited party/ies haven’t shown up. I don’t recall that ever happening without it being true.
I’ll go hunt, iampunha (ah, the glories of having time to do so).
And, the point isn’t that they did or did not show up afterwards, but that they were called out in a thread in which they were not participating at the time.
slows down the board searching for examples
Binarydrone, things are excellent! We’ve had great weather this summer, the fireworks at the waterfront were awesome, I went hiking Mt. Mansfield this week, and Peter Clavelle is still mayor.
Excellent rant Eonwe! I know of at least TWO threads in which this has happened, and I have been “up north” for a week and haven’t even had a chance to catch up.
I know exactly what you mean even without any links.
I know exactly what the OP is talking about, and that ain’t it, Harli. Esprix’s comment was ironic: he didn’t expect anyone to show up. He was highlighting a double standard between how people were reacting to that thread, and how people reacted in the thread he linked to in that post.
I know what you mean, but sometimes it is necessary to pre-empt a hijack; for example in a thread where the OPer wants to, say, dispassionately compare the aesthetics and function of the Apple Mac GUI with that of Windows XP, it is quite reasonable (in my view) to anticipate that somebody will shamble in and just use it as a soapbox for their disdain of one system or the other, it is also quite reasonable to try to forestall such an eventuality.
What would be unreasonable would be to start a debate on some topic but try to forestall the relevant input of one of the major voices (“lets debate the ethics of abortion; no pro-choicers please”, “Should gun control be tighter?; gun owners only to respond”)
That’s silly, Mangetout. They’re not preempting anything; they’re simply getting their own biases out of the way. The comment is superfluous to the conversation.
It’s worse when someone actually names a person who they think will come along and say such-and-such, when (as the OP points out) that person might not even be reading the thread, let alone deign to respond.
No, I don’t think it is silly; like I said, it isn’t appropriate in a debate, but in a thread that is not intended to be a debate at all (like my hypothetical Mac/XP thread, where the purpose was simple objective comparison of the GUI), I think it is quite appropriate to request that it not be hijacked into a heated debate.
Another example might be someone asking advice about How to do such-and-such in Windows; I think it is quite legitimate for such an OP to request contributors not to start vehemently evangelising about Linux.
But perhaps this is not what this thread is really about - as I said, I think the tactic is inappropriate in a thread that is started as a debate.
It’s appropriate to ask that it not be hijacked, but I thought the OP was referring to people who kind of derisivly state that so-and-so will be in shortly with the opposing view.
I agree with you in that it’s okay for the OP (or anyone really involved in the debate) to request that hijacks be kept at a minimum, even to the point of suggesting that another thread be opened.
Here’s an example - and it’s still possible I’m misreading the OP:
Some Poster: I believe this cited evidence shows that Bush knew such-and-such and lied about it. I’m sure december will be here shortly to whine about how I’m maligning the Bushies.
dantheman’s got what I’m getting at (but nice effort Mangetout ).
I spent a great deal of yesterday afternoon trying to search and being very frustrated with the slowness of midday SDMB. I’d like to think that most of us, though, can admit to having seen on multiple occasions statements like the one dantheman has provided.
Ahh, yes Miller, I guess that’s not a great cite. Was just something off the top of my head.
And since I’m here, I suppose I really should comment on the OP.
Yes, that kind of verbalized expectation isn’t always a great contribution to a thread, but there are kinds of “drive-by” posts that are as equally unneccessary. But I guess because it is merely an annoyance and not really a board policy, we have to deal with it.
Either that, or I’m just way too easy going about stuff.
).