And … I thought everyone knew that. At least, everyone who is enough of a regular to post in this thread.
You need a break today go to your playroom and fiddle with your figurines until you calm down.
This is really trivial, but: Why, oh why, do posters in the “misread thread titles” thread post their misunderstanding … with no link or other explanation to the ACTUAL thread title?
Example here: Misread thread titles - #1687 by SuntanLotion
Um, what? I guess I missed the original thread, so I can’t grasp the humor of the misreading. Salad, phones, something-something? Sure. But link to the real thread, or at least type out the correct thread title in your post, so I know WTF you are talking about.
C’mon, folks … it isn’t that hard. Do it like this post. Tell us your humorous misreading, but also link us to the actual thread, so we can figure it out.
It’s just rude otherwise.
Oops. Sorry.
Uploading audio
Uploading salad.
That’s still uselessly incoherent, because we don’t need an ex post facto explanation in the “What were you THINKING” thread. The point is: from now on, please do it right in the misread titles thread. (And you are not the only offender, just the most recent example.)
FFS, when you post in the “misread thread titles” thread, you have two perfectly reasonable options:
- Post your misread version, with a link to the real thread title.
- Post your misread version, and also type out the real title so people can compare.
I’ve not looked in that thread at all but it reminds me of another pet peeve of mine. When there’s a thread that’s going to involve lots of blurred out spoilers, but the posters don’t tell you what they’re blurring out. For example, if we have a thread called “Favorite movie endings” and someone posts:
instead of:
I know I’ve posted in a number of those threads over the years to ask that people blur/spoiler tag the actual spoiler, but (in this case) but leave the name of the movie visible. I want to be able to read what people have to say about movies I’ve already seen and/or movies I’m not going to watch, while avoiding the ones I don’t want spoiled. But I can’t do that if the entire post is hidden.
In one thread, when I posted that, the person who I was replying to pushed back because the movie they were talking about was old or the twist was well known or the ‘spoiler’ wasn’t much of a spoiler or something along those lines. In any case, they didn’t seem to grasp that that doesn’t matter since we don’t know what movie they’re talking about in the first place.
Warning, no spoiler blur for a 25+ year old movie that is the prototype for twist ending spoilers. This is the pit, not cafe society, so deal with it.
I’m going to low key disagree, based my experience with the exact example you use. Going into that movie I knew almost nothing about it other than “I see dead people”. My friend told me, “you’ll like it, there’s a twist,” to which I replied, “what, is Bruce Willis a ghost?”
Sometimes just knowing there’s a twist is a spoiler. In those cases it may best to mention as little as possible. “I’ve seen Sixth Sense, and I think you’ll like it.”
I do agree with the general argument, of describe something about what is spoilered, linked, or hidden.
That’s actually why my hypothetical thread had the title “favorite movie endings” and not “favorite plot twists”. It started out as ‘favorite movie twists’ before I changed it for that reason. That’s why The Sixth Sense is the example.
So now DrDeth is clogging up the Hamas/Israel thread, focused on making sure everyone understands the single most crucially important fact about this conflict: Joe Biden did nothing wrong!
Yeah, because that’s the relevant issue right now.
The quality of my life and my experience here both have improved so much now I’ve got him back on ignore.
The bastard pollutes some of the game threads just often enough to be irksome, requiring me to twiddle his (usually crap) posts back to visible just so I don’t lose track of the train of the thread.
A distinction without a difference.
But on the subject of a different poster:
Yeah, that’s the thread I blocked him over. Principal Skinner is actually a perfect avatar for such a miserable fuck.
My general view is the [ignore poster] feature is useless. Anyone who posts so much crap that I’m unwilling to see any more of it means that when I do block them, half the other posts by other posters are still talking about or quoting the prolific jerk’s contents.
The thread becomes both polluted and incomprehensible unless everyone puts the trouble poster on actual or metaphorical [ignore].
The only solution that works for me is to simply stop following the thread for a couple days, then jump to the bottom & pick up from there. If the kerfuffle has died down, great. if not, I write off the thread for good; another total loss due to @JerkyMcJerkface. Gee thanks turdbird.
Damned shame.
I have a number of posters on ignore that are so prolific that certain threads have as many hidden posts as they do visible ones.
My solution as well, although I often completely ignore the thread forever. There are many other interesting threads to peruse.
Remember that a thread is nothing more than a series of posts by posters. If a thread is dominated by posters who you have on ignore, because they post shitty things, it’s going to make for a shitty thread, and it’s not worth wasting your time on it.
Yeah. Some threads recover. Some don’t. Putting the thread back on [normal] rather than [tracking] solves my problem for any irrecoverable thread.
Since I largely abandoned P&E and the politics-centric threads in the Pit, my need to abandon threads has declined a bunch.
This reminds me of a popular rap song I heard on the radio, one verse was completely incomprehensible because they were blanking out the not for radio language. I had heard the song before and it just made laugh when they came to that verse. At some point maybe they should have just skipped a verse, or left it in as instrumental.
//i\\