Re: Why disrespect the wishes of a thread's initiator?
Thomas wrote:Sometimes on A2K, people start threads because they just want to chat. Other times, they start them to discuss a specific topic that's on their mind. When that is the case, they often ask their correspondents to keep their posts on topic.
What happens next frequently astounds me. Sure, there are correspondents who respect the initiator's wishes, others just ignore them, spamming the thread with generic cookie-cutter posts like "Bush is corrupt", "But look what Clinton did!", "This is so typical of the Bushies", etc.
Actually, you're understating the behavior. Many times I've seen people jump into perfectly polite discussions on legitimate topics just to mock the initiator or the topic, with no intention whatever of really participating. This includes jumping in to mock threads on
non-political topics just because one doesn't like the poster based on previous history.
Thomas wrote:Letty wrote:I feel that "control" is too strong a word for adhering to a particular topic, Phoenix. As msolga and I have mentioned, we understand Thomas' original thesis, and have tried to respond appropriately. I wasn't aware that this was a political thread, and I really don't think it is.
Hey, Thomas. Where are you?
I'm here; no it's not a political thread, and thanks to you two for responding to the subject. The same thanks go to Setanta, Cycloptichorn, Edgar, ehBeth, DrewDad, Chumly, stuh, Phoenix, and Chai. They also responded to the subject, whether they agree with me or not.
You forgot dyslexia. I think he made a very salient point with his post.
I wanted to say I'm sorry Thomas and the rest of you who I may have offended with my comment.
I've had a really really rough week and I tend to joke a lot when I'm stressed. It's no excuse, but I'm truly sorry!
My opinion is that I get frustrated when some serious threads are de-railed and I try not to be one of the de-railers.
If I do ever do the de-rail thing, I blame stress and PMS
Thomas: you might want to check out
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2665196#2665196 and the remainder of Craven's posts on that topic.
Thomas
Thomas, I agree with you. Some people deliberately try to sabotage a thread by getting into pissing matches instead of discussion---they are so boring that they kill the thread.
Others post on many threads just to inject their advocacy for a certain cause, such as anti-gun control, etc., even when it's not relevant to the thread topic.
You can usually tell when someone is trying to sabotage a thread and I find that uncouth.
BBB
I agree with Thomas. I am not innocent of the offense at issue - derailing threads with bickering and off topic remarks - but I agree its something we'd all do well to try to desist from doing.
I have frequently found myself following or responding to comments in a thread that are part of or become a significant riff off the specific topic. In some cases these riffs have continued for pages. I suppose these could be considered as disrespectful of the author's intent. However in many cases I believe it is just a part of the whimsical nature of the site. Things go where the participants take them.
There are also cases of long windy posts that don't relate at all to either the topic or the current drift of the dialogue. I think we all would agree that these are often the work of people of limited understanding and/or malicious intent. Not much good can be said about them.
Thomas is German and we all know how much they love rules. More importantly though he is polite and considerate of others here - even in disagreement. I believe that is the essential distinction - at least as I would make it. If the thread author objects to an off topic riff he/she can comment to steer things back. At that point one should either attempt to comply or go elsewhere.
These threads are about entertainment; the exchange of information and the contest of ideas. None of this requires that we become personally offensive, or shoehorn our favorite harangues into unrelated conversations. Despite this most of us do occasionally become irritated or salt our commentary with a bit of insult or invective. I am prone to that in any kind of spirited debate, though in better moments I try to limit that.
Well, I pipe in from time to time. I don't mean, at least usually, to disrupt. Sometimes I might have agita' and want to just say this or that. But, usually, I've worked my comment to a mere sentence. As such, my posts are generally posted over fast fast fast, by people quoting each other back and forth.
Too bad, as I've a lot of reading, observation, and thought behind my seemingly lame posts. Or maybe beside, not behind - I don't claim wisdom behind what I do post. I think I could engage, if not always in the den of snipes, or snips. I'm just not all that interested in proving every thought process, though I am at least slightly interested in thinking all that out.
To some extent it is just as well, as I don't want to hold up a thread flow as I think.
On the other hand, some pages of so called thinking are sheer floss and gloss, on topic or way off.
I've long given up on the politics zoo. Y'all want to come over to my house and talk, you'll be welcome.
As a proper Canadian I too find Americans too bawdy for my sensitive cyber-palate. This site needs to button up its collective shirt and put its pants back on.
So, I'll whip up a summary to say I don't mind divergence generally, and most times threads go back to the original post from time to time...
but, yeah, when there is a special plea in the beginning of the thread, I'd like to see that paid attention to.
Gee, I'd like to see people read the whole first post in any case.
georgeob1 wrote:I have frequently found myself following or responding to comments in a thread that are part of or become a significant riff off the specific topic. In some cases these riffs have continued for pages. I suppose these could be considered as disrespectful of the author's intent. However in many cases I believe it is just a part of the whimsical nature of the site. Things go where the participants take them.
ossobuco wrote:So, I'll whip up a summary to say I don't mind divergence generally, and most times threads go back to the original post from time to time...
Just to repeat: I have no problem with digressions in general. I was making a much narrower point about threads whose initiators explicitly state they want the thread to stay on topic. What's the point of derailing them? I wouldn't even bother asking the question if it was just the idiot fringe who derails perfectly reasonable threads on purpose. But it's not. Many of the derailers are otherwise interesting and agreeable posters. If they don't want to focus, why don't they just let the focused treads be? That's what I'm trying to make sense of.
quote: Just to repeat: I have no problem with digressions in general. I was making a much narrower point about threads whose initiators explicitly state they want the thread to stay on topic. What's the point of derailing them? I wouldn't even bother asking the question if it was just the idiot fringe who derails perfectly reasonable threads on purpose. But it's not. Many of the derailers are otherwise interesting and agreeable posters. If they don't want to focus, why don't they just let the focused treads be? That's what I'm trying to make sense of.
This is a very reasonable request, in a thread that is well thought out and has engaged serious responses, at least until it has reached a logical end of purpose.
You skipped the rest of my sentence, Thomas.
"but, yeah, when there is a special plea in the beginning of the thread, I'd like to see that paid attention to."
Chumly wrote:As a proper Canadian I too find Americans too bawdy for my sensitive cyber-palate. This site needs to button up its collective shirt and put its pants back on.
I suppose this is intended to be humorous. However, i long ago tired of a penchant so many Canadians seem to have of trumpeting their "holier than thou" superiority to Americans in matters of courteous behavior. As with all such nationally idiosyncratic self-perceptions, it is shallow and can never be said to be universally applicable.
Quite apart from that, it is not germane to the topic of this thread.
not to derail the thread but Thomas why don't you speak to me anymore?
Did I offend you?
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:not to derail the thread but Thomas why don't you speak to me anymore?
Did I offend you?
That's just tactics. When a thread gets derailed, one thing that almost never works is turning into Topic Cop (TM) and censuring people. Bearing this in mind, I responded to those who did address the topic and ignored those who didn't. That sometimes works.
So the answer to your second question is: no, you didn't offend me.
edgarblythe wrote:quote: Just to repeat: I have no problem with digressions in general. I was making a much narrower point about threads whose initiators explicitly state they want the thread to stay on topic. What's the point of derailing them? I wouldn't even bother asking the question if it was just the idiot fringe who derails perfectly reasonable threads on purpose. But it's not. Many of the derailers are otherwise interesting and agreeable posters. If they don't want to focus, why don't they just let the focused treads be? That's what I'm trying to make sense of.
This is a very reasonable request, in a thread that is well thought out and has engaged serious responses, at least until it has reached a logical end of purpose.
So, if, according to you, a thread is not well thought out (read conservative), you are justified in intervening with the purpose of derailment. Nice philosophy.
we never talk anymore ever honey.... I was so worried....
Bear
I just noticed your post at the bottom of your post. This is off topic but when I read it I burst into laughter. It is great!
