Why disrespect the wishes of a thread's initiator?

Bush sucks.

vegans suck.

Germans eat a lot of shrimp...

Well, here goes. If it is truly a topical thread, and not a bait thread, i often comment once at the beginning, and then just read along. If it's a "bait" thread--Why do conservatives hate America? or Liberals won't support our troops!--then i will probably just dive in to mock the author and the premise. Oftentimes, i find the stupidest threads to be those started by people whom the conservatives would describe as being leftist--the September 11th conspiracy threads, the threads about how the Jews control the U.S. government--but i'm an equal opportunity heckler.

Then there are the just plain wacko threads, such as those which suggest that my religion is better than yours, and you're going to Hell, you vile tool of Satan (i actually find these nut cases worse than political snipers, who don't necessarily relish the notion that their opponents will burn in Hell for eternity). Or the really wacky conspiracy threads, such as the recent one which seeks to suggest that childhood vaccination is a genocidal conspiracy.

But if a thread has a topic, which is not lunatic fringe, and which is not political or religious bait--then i read along without comment, or make a brief, early comment and read along, or i just stay away because i'm not interested.

I admit to one weakness. I've often been criticized for diving into religious threads, and have been accused of doing it for pure meanness. However, if they are doctrinal threads, and not one in which one religion or sect is just out to smear the other, i don't participate, although i may or may not read. But, as i have pointed out, i find most of them to be exercises in invidious abuse of those with whom the author disagrees (and is often eager to disagree from the outset)--and i consider those fair game.

Germans eat a lot.

Everybody in the Beltway knows that Hitlery curses like a drunken sailor on a marine brawl. "The Flag Incident" at the White House would prove that conclusively. But who cares? She is not the only foul mouth filly that ever walked her way through Washington. Nearly everybody whose connected" in D.C. suspects that Hillary is at best AC/DC and some say she is very heavy not the chickadees who "switch hit" for the lesbian League. But should that disqualify her for the U.S. Senate even if its so. Barney Frank has his 'boys.' Why shouldn't Hillary have her "girls."

With Bill Clinton as her "loving husband" it is easy to understand why Hitlery would become gay. She certainly has more balls than he does. Clinton may be a coward, corrupt, croooked, and even a killer "according to Gennifer flowers, who feared for her his if she didn't go public, But about the 'First Lady' with those piano legs, hippo-hips and who has to shuffle like a baby bull elephant just to get around. What's wrung with her? She can't help it if those thunder highs are "cellulite city" Its her arrogant, obnoxious attitude that realty makes her ugly to the bone.

In Gennifer flowers' book "SLEEPING WITH THE PRESIDENT' Gennifer asked the then Governor one night why Hillary put up With Bill's having an affair with her- Clinton responded "SHE'S GONE DOWN ON MORE PUSSY THAN I EVER WILL." This explains a lot coming from Cocaine Clinton himself just why she doesn't mind his "Muff Diving" and may well justify his extramarital activity.

Then what about author Cathy O'Brien, who claims while acting as a "Sex Servant" for a top government agency that she was requested to service "Hitlery's Muffin" She did with great reluctance - finding it "VERY GAMEY."

Then there's rumored to be this "Female" Director/Producer from New York who's said To Be "Doing Hillary" or is it visa versa? Maybe that's why she has moved to the Big Apple. Both Cathy and Gennifer are more than willing to testify that Hitlery has a liking for the lesbian ladies. And Cathy said she slept with her And in so far as Gennifer's comments, we know the President's a liar. I can't t remember the last time he told the truth.

Hillary might have good reason to be a "Man Hater" if her experience with the opposite sex has mostly been confined to wayward Willie, But who knows maybe the Clintons are just a couple of "Swingers" left over from the sinful '70s, when everybody did everybody in those "Orgies."

I know people can change sexual preference. My first girlfriend in Junior High was a tomboy with little pity bust, a wonderful smile and had a great personality. Now she is a grandmother with big jumbo jugs and has a full blown dyke girlfriend, slick-back grey hair. Does this change the way I feel about her? No she's still a great gal. Being gay doesn't change that. But in so far as Hillary is concerned, if she's gone gay, she needs to be OUTED so that people can decide for themselves whether they want another liberal lesbian In Washington. Barney Frank openly admits he 'swaps spit with young men' and that doesn't bother the voters from Massachussets. So let the chips roll where they will.

What bothers me about Hillary is that "Man Hater Thing" that so many of us straight "Right Thinking Men" sense about her. When you couple that with her "Holier Than Thou Attitude" and you've got one real barracuda. She covers up her course, crude and often cruel character real well with a mask of a Madonna. But the question is she really as viscous, vile and vindictive as so many people say? One thing for sure she Is not the sweetheart of Sigma Kal.

OK, I think that should about make for page 1.

Hey, better to have all the flippancy done with right at the beginning... :wink:

The cure in this case ends up being worse then the problem. I've long maintained that it is but a trifling effort to skip reading any post you don't want to read.

Conversations ebb and flow naturally. Sometimes they will be far more tied to the initial conversation, and other times they will stray. This is natural and shouldn't be stifled by an overly protective sense of 'you can't talk about that here!'

Respectful posters will, when reminded, try to stay on topic; but better to shrug off those that don't then to get upset. Especially as there is no real recourse available. The nature of A2K doesn't lend itself to threads which are not corruptible by conversation drift; each and every thread will eventually drift away from its' inception, and you can either get into a lot of arguments about it, or just let it be.

Cycloptichorn

I sort of agree with setanta. Some threads beg to be siderailed, while others are worthy to keep on topic. I have not always followed my own creed in the matter, but, I am getting better.

Re: Why disrespect the wishes of a thread's initiator?


It's not work, and it's usually not a 'real' hobbyists' discussion that's getting whacked.

In real life, I might well take a digressionary tack to a conversation that's heading in an undesirable (IMNSHO) direction. Whether that means goofing on someone, or simply throwing some kind of conversational red herring in, I'm more than capable of (and willing) derailing real-life conversations.

~~~

Maybe I'm not taking the religious and political hobbyists seriously enough.

Wanna help me find my nuts?

If you want to control who and/or what topics are allowed in your discussion, go find a board where you can moderate your own threads.

Otherwise, you pays your money and you takes your chances.

I hadn't quite focussed properly when I read this.

I read "you pays your money and you takes your chaos"

Thought "DrewDad's more brilliant than usual tonight".

I'm sure I agree with DrewDad, but first I have to figure out what this thread is about.

What are you going on about, Thomas? Come on, you can tell me. Don't make me go back to the beginning and read the opening posts. There's no way, after two pages, that the beginning has anything to do with what we're talking about now anyway.

Wait, let me guess. We're talking about disrespecting shewolf's nuts, right?

I suppose, in the silly season any thread attracks to be derailed.

I mean why else did I open it - not many online, my favourite posters aren't posting since weeks, and I hate it to write just



Bookmark.

I really like sushi. But I don't like wasabe. Maybe it's just me.

Thomas are you sure you can look into the heart of the thread initiator's wishes? In my case I would very unlikely to care if my thread strays OT unless the change in topic was in the from of an unfair / dishonest categorization in which there was nothing interesting / redeeming being said.

And even if the post in question is in the from of an unfair / dishonest categorization in which there was nothing interesting / redeeming being said, it's again very unlikely I am going to care terribly.

I figure if the posters are up the challenge and the topic is up to their scrutiny then the thread will maintain itself until it dies of natural causes.

Thomas, is it disrespectful for a dog to not say please and thank you after you feed it? Is it disrespectful for a baby to cry in public? One should not have unrealistic expectations about the feedback they may get on a forum either. A thread does not own to the originator. A thread is a discussion and it is shared by the community....one can try to guide it, but it doesn't always go that way. Invariably there are some posts that are on topic and some that are off topic. If the topic is a good serious issue, then people will naturally have more on topic replies...if there is nothing that really needs to be said, the information content in the replies will go down. It maintains a natural balance. If your topic gets swarmed with spam, then it is a likely indicator that your topic either sucks, or you posted it to the wrong crowd.