Good point, and that’s one of the reasons why I saw it as being a confrontational thread rather than your standard request for advice.
Yeah, this got a bit bogged down. To be clear, it’s not like anyone doesn’t get why a company in principle might not want people sitting on display furniture. But it’s a bit odd for outdoor furniture, which is designed to be weatherproof. The issue is that he was being so obtuse about the full circumstances of what was going on. Most people certainly don’t have much sense of what’s normal at a trade show like this. If this were a good faith request for advice/opinions, we obviously need to understand whether it was in accord with common sense expectations for someone wandering through that furniture in a pergola would not be for sitting; how clearly it was signed; just how important it really was that nobody sit - was this expensive upholstered furniture, and if so why was indoor furniture being displayed in a pergola?
I think it’s a red flag for any thread ostensibly soliciting advice where OP is obtuse about giving details. (Unless, of course, there’s some obvious reason to protect an identity or something.)
Yeah, if he said he didn’t want to say what brand of furniture it was, or any other details about the furniture or his business or where his business was located I’d get that. Those are legitimate things to leave out to prevent the business from being identified and inadvertently give it some bad attention. But the detail of why the furniture can’t be sat on is a pretty important detail and shouldn’t be sensitive information. The only reason to withhold it is to confuse and/or irritate people (as a troll is trying to do).
Hell, he even made a point to say up-front in the OP that he wasn’t going to tell people the reason. That’s some proactive trolling.
At this point, though, I’d rather see the thread open and in the Pit for unfettered entertainment value.
This was the most obviously trolling bit in the OP to me. Withhold obviously relevant information, say you’re doing that up front, then use people’s requests for that info to create confrontation and accusations of hijacking your thread. Adding the subject matter and wording of the OP, obvious troll is obvious. And sock.
For anyone trying to determine the identity of the sock, I’ve noticed a few instances of using “lead” where “led” is intended. Not a rare mistake, but might help ID a pattern.
Also didn’t he at one point say “this is hypothetical.”?
It’s just not adding up.
I don’t know if anyone noticed, but I thought this was a bit of a giveaway about the objective of the thread, when I was probably skirting a bit close to the edge in taking the piss:
(I had in fact just reported him for trolling.)
He made up a hypothetical about why people couldn’t sit there, but then wouldn’t engage with his own hypothetical.
How was this turd dropped without comment?
Ugh.
.
Because it’s not trolling?
~Max
There was a comment shortly afterward, agreeing with the complaint about kids.
What a couple of weirdos!
@puzzlegal, you’re a party pooper for closing that mess of a thread instead of sending it to the Pit!
And not only that, the whole point of the thread is that the one in the wrong is the poster… I might find that poster’s view distasteful (and I do), but many would find my position in that thread distasteful as well (the sound of kids having fun is grating).
Not too sure what’s been going on here the past couple of days, but if mom isn’t married she can fuck anyone she wants. Are we still accusing people of having mothers with sex lives? What are we, 12?
I have clearly missed something…
¯_(ツ)_/¯
He meant kicked your mom or fucked your dog.
Now, now, what consenting adults do in privacy is their own business.