Meta - Thread/Topic Ownership

You can feel this way, but how do you intend to do this? How is it even possible to enforce this? (Hint: it's not.)

And I say this as someone who's started threads both serious and deliberately stupid, and who's happily derailed or re-railed threads...

Also, some threads start serious and get way the fuck out to weirdsville. Wanna see how? Start a thread on Intelligent Design or Religion and see what happens when a certain poster shows up to add his obviously Divinely inspired genius...

OMG see what happens when somebody disagrees with you!!

You can't enforce anything. You can only request - politely or not so politely - that people take digressions elsewhere.

I mean, I have started, in the past year or so, to do this myself, as a matter of common courtesy. That if I catch myself going off on a unwanted digression, I'll take it to another thread. It just seems polite to me.

I mean, to liken it to a conversation, if you started a conversation with a friend, and saying "look, in all seriousness, I've been having trouble with X, have you ever had this happen to you, what did you?" how would you react if your friend just started interrupting with random inappropriate jokes?

But ILE threads aren't conversations with a friend!

it totally depends on how nebulous that topic is. some of the greatest threads are great because they sprawled off-topic and into strange new territories.

it's the random pictures that fuck with my head.

anyway, i don't care who owns what thread, it's a totally abstract concept if you ask me. i couldn't give a flying monkey with a tennis racket if someone changed the topic of my thread. there's more in life to worry about than somebody talking about the wrong thing in a big long list of stuff shared by like 3000 people on the internet.

-- giboyeux (in....), November 10th, 2005 10:14 AM. (skowly) (later)

uhm, i was referring more to someone arguing in completely bad faith, not necessarily disagreement

I think that a lot of us post for either a) information we just don't have or b) clarification/justification of information we already have. If the thread doesn't provide one of these when we thought/hoped/planned that it would, then we get somewhat annoyed. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't ALLOW the snipers to throw in quick one-line answers. We all do that at some point or another, or we would all be FAR TOO FUCKING serious. But, frequently, there is a tipping point in threads where democracy just becomes untenable and the snipers run out of things to snipe at and start shooting at themselves, thus making the real point afraid to reemerge.

Far too well-developed a metaphor. But whatever.

OTM

If you want most people to respect the topic of a thread you've started, you have to husband the thread by posting consistently on it, yourself. Otherwise, whomever posts there will determine its direction and tenor.

This is what I DOOOO. Or at least try to.

it totally depends on how nebulous that topic is. some of the greatest threads are great because they sprawled off-topic and into strange new territories.

That's not what I'm talking about - see, when that happens, it's great. It's the descending into faffing about... like this thread is in danger of doing right now if i don't hit submit before another 10 answers.

Anyway, it's poxy fuling now so I'll try to hit one more thing...

uhm, i was referring more to someone arguing in completely bad faith, not necessarily disagreement

Yes, see this is the sort of thing that I'm talking about. For example, any time anyone tries to have a serious discussion of religion, for example. I know, trying to have serious discussions of religion is fuel for horror. But when you say "this is a thread *about* religion, if you are religious - NOT a religion: classic or dud thread" and then you still get the ranting squad.

...and then you've got your attention seeking vandals. Please get your attention elsewhere.

this thread got owned.

Hey, the "submit" button didn't change typeface!

i think, if there are enough people interested in a topic, you can't really derail it (unless you do a jon 'hello look i can use the style tag go me' williams and fuck up the actual page, which is kinda lame).

I mean, honestly? Unless the point was "Lookat me, I'm Jon Williams and I get a free pass to act like a total cunt to everyone around me!"

It's understandable to want people to stay on the topic as you define it as the thread starter, just like it's understandable to want a conversation with a friend to go a particular way. That doesn't mean it will. And to extend that not particularly apt metaphor, even in a conversation between friends, nobody actually OWNS it. Let alone a discussion between countless ilxors. Johnney B is OTM, you'll do much better to get threads back on a topic if you say something that actually stimulates discussion in it, rather than posting up finger-wagging "C'mon guys, back on topic... c'mon... complaints.

Basically, you can request that people stay on the subject as you defined it, but you can't demand it.

well, this is pretty much what my friends do and it is usually not done out of callousness but out of CONCERN that i'm getting TOO HET UP which doesn't stop me from wheedling "but seeeeriously, guyzzz" which of course only eggs them on

xpost kate, when has that ever NOT been the point of JW? it is his schtick.

- A thread starter doesn't have any control over where a thread goes, though they can influence it like anyone else.

- But of course they can say in the question "can you talk about X not Y" or "I'm not really after frivolous examples" or some other reasonable request, and that usually helps.

- ILX wasn't started as an art project Johnny B but I did definitely (over-)intellectualise qns like this when I set it up, and I liked the idea of threads being messages in bottles whose fate you can't control.

What it comes down to it, I suppose is the expectation that other people will be able to act with fundamental consideration. Though it is turning out that what constitutes fundamental consideration changes from person to person.

x-post

I liked the idea of threads being messages in bottles whose fate you can't control.

Message in a bottle is one thing... but complete derailment/ruining like was attempted above (yes, it was an extreme case, but it's an exteme case which has been happening a lot lately) is surely a different matter.

You're right, because to me, your idea of "fundamental consideration" comes off as selfish and entitled. You are not entitled to anything on ILX.

I can see how it would be annoying if you felt strongly about "owning threads" but to be blunt you either deal with it or moderate your own board.

It might be worth stepping outside that glass house when you talk about thread derailment.

CHECK.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if you read the entire thread above, I admit that I used to be very guilty of derailing threads to be about whatever my latest obsession is, noted that it irritated others, noted that I didn't like when it was done to me, and modified my behaviour.

Sure, you can judge me by the entire 5 years of my posting on this board, or you can notice that some people change and grow.

Stevem OTM.

If you want to go to a place where there are no rules and no moderation, go to the NOIZE BOARD, I thought that was what it was for. If you want to interact with others like a human being, then stay here.

I am not very good at this 'freedom' thing.

xp

Grow? More like BALLOONING!!!! Can someone post an image montage of the "DOWNWARD SPIRAL"

Estefan

An example of rules used well I think is the 'are goodlooking people charitable' thread N started, where he specifically asked for no "but you ARE good-looking" to-and-froage, and this was respected and probably improved the thread.

ILE is good today!

I'm curious. If there's a poster that you know you disagree with, and you think is, essentially, utter shit - and you see a thread of theirs. Do you:

1) just kind of ignore it, as you know it will be not for you/make you angry/wind you up
2) go on it with your guns drawn and start blazing away about how horrible they are, and how their opinion is utter shit

I mean, that's a genuine question. And it's kind of related to the concept of ownership, because so much of ILX relies on this sort of "live and let live" idea. That different posters and threads and ideas have the right to coincide. Conflict is a part of discourse, but there's a differnce between conflicting opinion and just being outright rude and provocative.

See, I think this is urgent and key.

This idea that different people have different ideas about what constitutes "fundamental consideration" is an interesting thing for you to bring up kate, becuase you seem to change your own opion of what it means fairly regularly, based on how grouchy you may or may not be feeling on a particular day.

No, I think that I'm human and if people go out of their way to provoke me, I will snap. I *TRY* to show people the same consideration that others show. I don't always succeed.

But honestly, I don't want this thread to turn into yet another Kate's Netiquette: Classic or Dud. I want to know where people draw the line about what constitutes common consideration.

1) just kind of ignore it, as you know it will be not for you/make you angry/wind you up
2) go on it with your guns drawn and start blazing away about how horrible they are, and how their opinion is utter shit

3) respond to the topic, not the person

xpost

An example of rules used well I think is the 'are goodlooking people charitable' thread N started, where he specifically asked for no "but you ARE good-looking" to-and-froage, and this was respected and probably improved the thread.

i.e. sometimes I will start a thread and say something like "this is a serious thread so please be respectful" and 9 times out of 10 people will.

I suppose what really provoked this was not my humour thead (which, TBH I'm surprised stayed on topic as long as possible) but the "Should I cut my father off" thread. I've been talking to a few people who have left ILX recently and they all cite similar reasons.

3) respond to the topic, not the person

I've been meaning to start a thread in rhyming couplets just so I can see what TOMBOT does. That propensity of mine seems to really get his goat. So that would be the opposite of what you're talking about. Like leaving a goat tied out on a rock for the lions to kill.

1) just kind of ignore it, as you know it will be not for you/make you angry/wind you up
2) go on it with your guns drawn and start blazing away about how horrible they are, and how their opinion is utter shit

when it's a question thread, usually option 2. when it's a more vague/non-specific thread, option 3 (give it a quick glance and get annoyed and wish i could be more like the angelic person who ignores it completely).

With a lot of posters (see above for the "I knew so and so started this thread) topic and poster are quite joined.

(I mean, to go off on a digression, honestly, sometimes I wonder, when I start a thread - why some people feel compelled to get on it? Like, dude, you know you don't like me, why bother? I don't leave your things alone because I'm not interested/bothered. Why can't you just live and let live? But that is neither here nor there.)

Now that, to me, is the height of arrogance and self centredness.

Anyway, I'm going to go and do some work now. Thanks to Gravel, Tom, Beth and others for giving me food for thought on this. Some of this is me needing to let off steam when I feel frustrated (and when I see people I really like leaving ILX I do get really frustrated).

well that just makes responding to the topic not the poster even easier.

if you like a topic, then who gives a fuck who started it.

that's why i still go onto headshine threads.

but rather than derailing it to a different direction by going "MER MER MER MER STOP DERAILING MY THREAD" which is derailing in itself, much more effective to just go back on topic, if it's more interesting than monkey tennis people will carry on talking.

xpost

It already is.

xpost

Sounds kind of like some ILX threads.

I give up.

i've been on topic for like the whole thread and you have to pick up on the two words. and be all "oh i give up" rather than try and follow the thread. wtf.

Finally.

ken WAS on topic and OTM and you're ignoring it because....I actually don't know why you're ignoring it.

http://www.alan-partridge.co.uk/articles-info/ideas/monkey1.gif

but this is surely the very reason why people argue, beyond just pointing out what they think and then receiving the views of others - which wouldn't make for a very long or very interesting thread or conversation or whatever. also, if someone says something particularly offensive to you (maybe something racist or sexist or just plain untrue), is it still arrogant and self-centred to want to and think you can change their mind? i'm not so sure. but even if it is, i don't really care and would be content conceding that i can be arrogant and self-centred in that respect. i think everyone is 'guilty' of that, as everyone can be and has been cruel in the past. what's the point of just saying 'I don't like this, I don't understand how other people can like it' and expecting others to say 'otm' or 'wtf?' without it going any further?

You know what, I think that I'm human too, and if people annoy me, well, part of "showing people the same consideration that others show" is the bit where I bite my lip, hold back, and think about what I need to say in response, rather than calling somebody a fuckwit, which is never really necessary.

There have only been two personal insults on this thread - jon got called a cunt, and ken got called a fuckwit, and both times it was kate doing the calling. Is this you "owning" the thread kate? Or just pwning?

ken this is a terrible analogy! i mean, talking at shows is probably the best example I can think of of a few people ruining it for everyone else while thinking that theirs is the worthwhile contribution.

xpost

greg see my second part re: people being morons and thusly sometimes get beaten up!

ken particularly otm here.

even starting new threads about this...well has anyone really learned anything new here?

Ken C OTM

What I've learned is, don't try to start serious threads when you're overtired from working 12 straight hours several days in a row while ill.

What I've learned is, simply asking the question of what is or isn't acceptible behaviour is apparently only asking for criticism of your own behaviour. And people who hate me will go on hating, regardless of my misguided attempts to understand them.

What I've learned is, apparently monkeys can play tennis.

x-post: Stevem I learnt the ratio of people on the sides of Obv Unsolvable Binary Position even if we didn't get any closer to solving it, this was useful, to me!

I mean, some people obviously think that it's OK, even funny. While others think that it pretty much ruins the enjoyment of the entire show for everyone else so that those one or two people can enjoy their funny.

(And I'm not stomping off in a huff this time I'm waiting for my code to compile.)

1) just kind of ignore it, as you know it will be not for you/make you angry/wind you up
2) go on it with your guns drawn and start blazing away about how horrible they are, and how their opinion is utter shit

It depends on if I'm in an arguey mood or not.

What I've learned is, simply asking the question of what is or isn't acceptible behaviour is apparently only asking for criticism of your own behaviour. And people who hate me will go on hating, regardless of my misguided attempts to understand them.

You started this thread with a quote from me talking about you, of course this thread is going to end up being about you! And you're not attempting to understand anyone.

Not my fault if you can't understand what I'm on about, or want to project your own interpretations onto it.

i mean. everyone's been answering the question. apart from jon's CSS display

maybe people don't think it's acceptible. but they think it quietly rather than being unacceptible themselves?

I'm losing structural integrity of my mind right now because of too many 12 hour work days.

Pot, meet Kettle.

The shows I go to you really can't talk over. Unless you have a megaphone or something.

on other threads, however, it's just more effective to ignore the crap, then to fuel it, i mean, just think, every post you post in reply to derailment, is derailment. so if you hate it, don't do it.

and this includes posts that go "i would refrain from posting replies about derailment" or "i won't call you a dick anymore it's not worth it".

i mean just other people's notorious behaviour.

I quoted what you said because it flagged up a very fundamental differnce between the way that I (and some other people on ILX/this thread) perceive ILX and the way that you (and I'm assuming other people) do.

x-post

I know I'm doing it very clumbsily because I'm overtired and cranky, but I'm trying to have a discussion about it. If people leave because of Behaviour X, then I start a thread going "OK, why do people do Behaviour X?"

People *are* explaining. You're just not listening - possibly because you've already decided for yourself that it's rude and that no-one can convince you otherwise. As per this exchange:

Stevem some people ... are convinced they can make people reconsider.
You: Now that, to me, is the height of arrogance and self centredness.

This is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "I'm right, nah nah nah, not listening to you, nah nah nah". What I think is the height of arrogance and self centredness is not listening to what other people have to say, especially when you've invited their opinions in the first place.

(several gazillion xposts)

and spoil the fun? NEVER

NO LITERALLY I CANNOT HEAR YOU, BECAUSE YOU ARE TYPING NOT TALKING.

1) n/a accusing me of a sense of "entitlement" for requesting that threads on serious issues be kept serious and/or on topic

2) a load of dirty pictures and crap from JW (no explanation of what he actually gets out of this behaviour apart from perverse attention seeking)

3) Stevem talking about how if you see a thread with a topic/poster you know you will disagree with, that people jump in on arguments because they think they can make people reconsider. Which, well, yes, up to a point - and that point is where the ad homimen arguments commence. (And I think that's different with personal topics, rather than general topics.)

So I'm still not really that much closer to understanding any of it.

-- giboyeux (in....), November 10th, 2005 10:17 AM. (skowly) (later)

aw man, don't bring that up.

In the future, I'll just call people cunts and move on.

I'm going to check my email and go home.

If you can't even understand why people would pay to watch someone tell jokes, how can you hope to understand why people DON'T just ignore comments and people they disagree vehemently with? Acting all contrary and indignant about it will just make people want to argue.

As long as you don't have football related derailments, I think.

A: Because they are more interested in whatever they are talking about than what you are talking about.

You can like that or not, feel that it is disrespectful or not, and retaliate with all the "ad homimem" attacks in the world, but it doesn't change it. Sometimes people get going on interesting tangents in a thread, and that may not be interesting to you, but see above. And sometimes people just troll, because they find their jokes more interesting than, well, see above.

Solutions for this have already for been discussed ad nauseum.

Sarah and I are thinking of going to the circus for our 7th (!) anniversary of being together, will that be weird and too childish, or will it be fun?

What's weird about this thread isn't so much that people are counciling "pragmatism" re: asshattery as that there seems to have been (this might be totally wrong!) a move away from condemning (however powerlessly) eg trolling at all - like, when did we all become momus?

(I'm not actually saying this is even outright bad or wrong and I'm obv not trying to "call" Laura or Tracer out in any way, I'm just interested in if I'm imagining this shift or not)

x-post

(I'm not actually saying this is even outright bad or wrong and I'm obv not trying to "call" Laura or Tracer out in any way, I'm just interested in if I'm imagining this shift or not)

OH, NOW IT'S ON!

But seriously, I agree that sometimes trolling is completely appropriate. One example would be the fictional "My whole family just died in a fire" thread someone mentioned much earlier. There are also totally inane, fatuous threads (IMO, of course) that I feel actually benefit from various types of derailments. Most instances, like most of life, are somewhere in between.

The best solution to someone trolling you is, of course, to ignore the troll. Kate notoriously feeds the very trolling she decries, and no matter how often these situations go on doesn't seem to realize that simply walking away from it, ignoring it, and just going on about your original discussion is the only effective and realistic way to deal. Didn't anyone else here have older brothers who teased them? Come on.

If something is truly beyond the pale, posters on the thread will usually call it out. That's great--it's fine to disapprove of things, but on ILX that seems to turn very quickly into proposed forbidding/banning, which scares me a lot more than occasional asshattery.

k8 seems like the quintessential only child.

I had a brother who teased me...until I broke his fucking nose.

You don't have any say where your thread goes once you've started it. You don't like it, get one closed mailing list.

Granted. But after the image flooding has occurred, you can choose to either a) brush it off/dismiss it as silliness, albeit irritating or b) fly off the handle and start screaming names at the person on as many threads as possible. Which I also find uncalled for and annoying and... hey, not that different from trolling.

Butting into JW's "Taking off shoes at work" thread was fucking hilarious.

Mostly because everyone ignored it and it had no effect whatsoever. See people--that's how you handle a troll.

I agree with you there. I don't know if the poxy fule-ing today has been from cleaning up Jon's piddles on the carpet, but it does give me a good excuse to go out and do yard work. (xpost)

The best part! So funny!

I find the reaction to Kate's original thread question (in terms of the purposeful attempts to derail her thread, particularly since the people doing the derailing knew exactly what type of reaction they would get) assholish.

I do not find simple responses to the original question assholish.

Basically, and it's really my own damn fault for clicking on the thread in the first place, I'm completely fucking sick of this entire intractable, ill-tempered argument and I would like to think that after 3 to 5 years of posting here, people could grow the fuck up and get over themselves but you know, I might as well wish for a castle made of ice cream.

It does? I would go as far as to say it *could* be read as an *indirect* attack on blah blah blah.
Didn't read the rest of the thread as I couldn't care less. I feel how I feel about this topic and I've come to realize that it's basically pointless to "discuss" things like this with everyone else. Hooray! No one's mind is ever changed and it creates, um, unpleasantness.

img src="http://familyfun.go.com/Resources/Cakes/recipes/special/icecreamcastle.jpg">

Nick, if pressed I would say you're not wrong but I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that if someone is "bullied" or behaved badly to, it's the victim's responsibility to react in a calm, practical manner and defuse the situation. Because it's not. It might be the wiser, more useful course of action but not everyone is ever going to be good at letting things roll off and UGH maybe Kate's life would be easier if she were as good at it as you or other people are but she's NOT and it's not like she owes it to the world to get a passing grade from the School of Hard Knocks.

You're right. And conversely, it's not like ILX (or the world) owes her forbearance when she behaves or reacts badly.

Why does anyone have to OWE or DEMAND anything from anyone in this situation?

But seriously. I do feel a bit like Nick is saying Kate's deficient in some basic way b/c she doesn't know how to take a blow or roll w/ the colloquial punches or whatev (and sorry, Nick, to single you out when actually there are lots of people taking the same tone, it was just your comment that crystalized for me why I was bothered), whereas to my mind a nice place to live would be one in which NO ONE had to learn those things and bravo to those who had an older brother and are proud of being tough about ridicule but get over it, already. I suck at games of strategy but I do a mean Highland Fling. People are good at some stuff and not other stuff. Is making allowances really so terrible?

This isn't a partisan thing - I'd say exactly the same if people were deconstructing the posts of Jon or hstencil or Sam or anyone else I've never met, despie having read their posts consistently for like three or four years.

On my part it's like identity politics but with psychoanalysis, because I was bullied mercilessly and often and was not at all prepared to react well, and a lot of bad feelings linger. So my points are meant to be universal, am just applying them to the circumstances at hand and those revolve around Kate.

HAHAHAHAHA never stopped you before!

Why, Matt, do you think you don't really ever know people through a msg board? Or just that the forum is too public?

Dunno, it just feels a bit... weird. It feels a bit like talking loudly about someone while they're standing in the same room. I mean, you know Kate's going to read this thread anyway, so talk to her, rather than about her. (Hi Kate, I still don't agree with you about thread ownership but we're not really talking about that any more...)

On my part it's like identity politics but with psychoanalysis, because I was bullied mercilessly and often and was not at all prepared to react well, and a lot of bad feelings linger. So my points are meant to be universal, am just applying them to the circumstances at hand and those revolve around Kate.

Yeah, I realise that - maybe it's just the 'applying them to the circumstances at hand and those revolve around Kate' that I'm uncomfortable with, for the reason above. Or maybe it's I came home drunk and because Nick's 'Yeah, it kind of seems like Kate was never bullied by ANYONE, because she really doesn't know how to handle it correctly' seemed like one of the stupidest statements I'd ever read.

With regard to actually getting to know someone on a message board, well, if you're ONLY corresponding with them over ILX you're still unlikely to get a rounded view of their personality and that's bound to lead to skewed perception, or projecting things into the massive gaps that are left. I mean, how many thousands of posts from Anthony or Dan or Jess have I read over the years some of which have been very personal indeed? I still don't think I could accurately gauge their reactions to some things.

Of course, if you're actually talking about yourself then fine, go ahead. I'm not actually trying to start a fite here :)

I mean, look. We're all conceivably supposed to be adults, right? So why can't we have ONE SINGLE FUCKING THREAD in here that seems as though it's populated entirely by adults? Why is there such an impulse around here for people to pop up on random threads, give jokey, clownish responses so they can land on the latest Excelsior thread/get a cyber high-five from the other amateur comedians on this forum, and completely distract the flow of what had the promise of becoming something important and serious and INTERESTING?

And why do so many people on here choose pigheadedly to "blame the victim" when it comes to trolling/flaming actions? So many people on here tolerate the stupidest childish/juvenile behavior around, yet when the target of that behavior decides to speak out against it, the very same people turn around and become huffy or lash out at the victim of the attacks. Look, it's ok to be jokey and fun, but not when all the "fun"-making is purely one-sided and certainly unwarranted or not called for.

I'm one of those people who has increasingly become even more angered by ILX as a whole, because of what I've dubbed the Excelsior Syndrome. Far too many people are far too interested in being comedic at the expense of any sort of real discussion that there can no longer be anything approaching real adult-like conversation. I'm not saying there should be a complete ban on everything funny, I'm just saying that the funniness should be controlled, reined in, and only used as a method of exchange between individuals who wish to interact with each other in that manner. Maybe I'd be asking too much for that. Maybe I'd also be asking too much to have everyone treated with the same common courtesy they treat everyone else. I'm not talking friendship-type overtures; I'm just talking about keeping in mind that behind the username there lies a REAL PERSON, with the feelings and emotions accorded any real person out there. Maybe the majority of individuals here are too immature or cold-hearted or arrogant to carry on with that kind of attitude.

xpost to Jess: I have a job, too. And school. And I'm my mom's caretaker. I recognize that your method of escape might be different from my method of escape, but when it comes to interacting with other individuals (which posting on a message board is -- I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but message boards usually are populated by people, right?), I try my hardest not to vent out my frustrations at them. And Jess, I respect you a heck of a lot more than I respect other individuals on this board, because you at least had the decency to tell me what you felt about/toward me, in clearcut and forthright terms.

xpost to Blount: Finding oneself to be more grown-up than a group of individuals who choose to address things in a method typically chosen of teenagers != "narcissism".

This thread has interested me, despite being a dead duck from the start, since any such 'entitlement' as is being discussed (or requested) can have no practical effects.

I'm not even gonna touch the rest of this shit. jbr otm.

He also did stencils, right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302448.html

kenan you're an idiot. Morbius get the fuck off my thread.

― TOMBOT, Tuesday, November 18, 2008 5:02 PM (3 minutes ago)

you might as well be asking that people only post if they agree entirely with your views (this is not directed at anyone in particular).

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Thursday, November 10, 2005 4:15 PM (3 years ago)

ha, people's problems with you have nothing to do with your views and everything to do with the way you refuse to actually try to discuss anything until AFTER being called out as a miserable bastard. You show up somewhere and consistently, never fail, drop a dismissive one-liner. Then somebody says OH GOD DAMMIT MORBIUS WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU. Then you come back and say "I was just remarking blah blah blah, I actually agree with X Y Z, but don't understand why G thinks E is F in 2008."

Ha, I forgot that Dee the Lurker coined "Excelsior Syndrome."

Kate, what about people who revive threads? Do they have the same kind of "ownership" over them? Lots of times when I revive, it's merely to throw the thread back onto the New Answers page and then stand back and see what happens.
― jaymc (jaymc)

;_;

this thread =

what's interesting is that after someone tells another to GTFO they don't have to. what a world.

You show up somewhere and consistently, never fail, drop a dismissive one-liner.

I know my place. Discussing economics -- you'll sooner find me at a techno fest.

ie, consider it my equivalent to "Spielberg sucks."

The topic of which I claim ownership is:
guinea pigs

SOLD!

Okay, no one else go claiming they own threads about guinea pigs. I shall let no man or woman post a flag in the caviary.

http://www.rushmorecaviary.com/sitebuilder/images/Cavy0067-303x221.jpg

RC SCOOTIE PIE U R MIEN NOW