What Kinds of Threads on A2K Do You Avoid?

I have little interest in the "bait" threads, in which someone posts something with the obvious intent of getting a rise out of those with whom they expect to disagree. I will drop into a thread like that, though, to bait the author, and to warn others that it is a bait thread.

There are so many threads which i avoid simply because the topic doesn't interest me. There are literally thousands that i read without comment.

I also have little interest in threads in which the author cannot be bothered to write intelligibly in the English language. If someone is obviously not an native-speaker, i ignore that, but don't necessarily ignore the thread or the author. But do think people who are capable of using the English language, but don't, are uninteresting. They are playing a silly game, and i've never yet seen one who doesn't contradict their claim that they way they write is easier. They fail to abbreviate words they could have abbreviated, and they often obscure their own meaning because they fail to make contextual distinctions (you're, your, yore).

There are a small number of people who post whose threads i will ignore as soon as i see the screen name. That would be about three or four conservative posters who only ever post in Politics, and a half-dozen or more leftwing posters who only post in Politics.

I never read thread's by that goof Phoenix, with that stupid green text. (Old Abuzz: Green text ! ! ! Green text ! ! ! I got green text ! ! !)

I think the reason i'm more likely to avoid threads with leftwingnut authors is because so many of them seem to be conspiracy theorists, and, sadly, anti-semites.

I was skimming very quickly and somehow read that as "anti-smilies." For just a split second I was thinking "but I thought Setanta was anti-smilies himself, why would he..." Then my brain turned belatedly back on...<sigh>

Okay, sorry for the interruption, as you were.

Yeah, green text is a real turn-off, Setanta.

Speaking of text, I'm really put off by certain large text (often with bold!) posts!

I try to avoid threads where fundy wickers bash certain presidents.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/11/28/the_list/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

Harrumph! What little artistic talent that I have I pour into my green text. Now answer me this. Does this post not look strange to you???

Absolutely!
It doesn't match the green bits around the eye in the avatar! :wink:

I'm put off by generally mixed sizes and mixed colors, which I take as a variety of screaming, oddly boring screaming. And I've no interest in text message type spelling. Those two types of communication in combo are super-scrollers.

I'm not sure what you're saying with the hump the hostess/Virginia Woolf thing, Phoenix. (Mizz Dense here.)

I'm not completely appalled by the posting of a link and some article or part of some article. As I've done it myself, especially on land use threads, I know that many do it with the expectation that someone will comment and the conversation can commence. When I used to do it with something like 4 or 5 land use issue links at a time, it would have taken me, to do that, something like three hours. First to skim two weeks worth of architecture articles, then to read the ones that interested me, then to post, including using code to put titles in bold, then to add photographs if appropriate, and then to give sources, using the code method. By the time I listed five articles I'd be pooped.

I still do that with some art/architecture/photography articles, as single articles now, and I do try to make some short comment to start with, but even there, sifting through articles, adding photos, etc., I both don't want to shut off people's comments with some long soliloquy by me to start with, and have low energy for such commentary at that point anyway.
And, as usual, if people are put off, they can scroll.

Phoenix's green posts and CI's blue ones don't bother me.

You know, I remember hearing that line "hump the hostess", but don't know what it means either.

I saw Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, the movie, years ago - but all I remember is some pretty strident arguing...

I saw it not long ago, but don't remember quite what it meant either. I even googled it, but although there were tons of references to that line, none explained what it meant in context. I'm so glad I'm not the only one puzzled, I felt so naive!

I avoid threads about farts, ones with the words "Politically Correct" used in them, threads where the focus of conversation becomes centered on ignorant objectionable posters, and I'm sure I could come up with others, later on.

I have grown quite weary of threads exploring the wonders of owning & using a penis.

I avoid fanatics on either side of the issues. Debating is futile and the arguments just go round and round like a gerbil wheel - lot's of motion but no progress. I also avoid what I think of as "the pointlessly vulgar threads" - I'm not even going explain that category.

A thread I might have ignored will get my attention if I see certain people are on it (Chai, littlek, ehBeth, Calamity Jane), or if it is very active. I mostly look for threads that will be fun, humorous, educational or give me a chance to play Ann Landers.

I almost always look at Boomerang's threads, even if I don't contribute. I think she is one the cleverest contributors and makes the mundane into a carnival. Ryen usually sucks me in with his National Enquirer headlines and Walter with his "new stuff to know" themes. Kicky gets me with his on-going NYC bachelor soap opera sagas and I usually peek in at whatever Gus dreams up, even if I live to regret it. Lord Ellpus oftens manges to seduce me into his tales and littlek and Dag got me hooked on their "Life At Home".

I tend to avoid snakes, guns, zealots and people who want to sell me viagra.

I dunno. Looks like something "swiped off the internet, with little of no personal input from the one who swiped it".

You own one, too?

You mean you don't mind if it's something "swiped off the internet, with little of no personal input from the one who swiped it"?

Well, in my own defense (Do I have one? Yes, I c&p, sorry.), I do try to "fun up the atmosphere" around here a bit. We could do with a lot more laughs.

I guess some of us don't have a lot to say.

I'll shut up now....

I tend to avoid threads for most of the reasons given so far. I especially flee from threads in which individuals use the absurd practice of nesting comments--the breaking up of arguments and then responding to their parts one at a time is SO intellectually lazy. I prefer to read responses to others' statements en toto.
I also try to avoid the political threads wherein fanatics of the right wing tend to evoke the worst in me.

Well, Reyn, I don't know if Phoenix was referring to your threads or not, but I assumed she meant the ones (generally in politics) that are reeeeeally long, and just kind of the same old, same old. Yours are always edited down to just a quick, interesting summary, and they are always something goofy or different, plus you so often have some comment that makes them fun. I know some people just hate any c&p, but I think you avoid the pitfalls of it. No one has to open any threads in the human interest forum if they don't want to, either!