Meta - Thread/Topic Ownership

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Sorry for starting two threads in one day, but I don't want to derail my own thread.

n/a said:

you seem to feel that if you start a thread, you somehow OWN it and are entitled to some kind of control over where the thread goes. Hence, you start a "SERIOUS THREAD" and get annoyed when people start to take it less than seriously.

And what's wrong with thinking that? I *DO* think that the person who starts a thread specifies what the thread topic is, and has a right to object and/or ask for the derailers to start their own thread if the thread goes seriously off topic.

i.e. if you have requested a thread to be serious, then you do have an expectation that the thread should remain serious.

I do think that thread starting signifies a kind of ownership or at least guidance. Otherwise, what's what the point of setting topics at all?

I don't think this "ownership" extends to forbidding discussion of your topic that you may not agree with. But it does extend to curtailing digressions which fundamentally change the character of what your topic was if it destroys the original.

I will probably regret starting a thread on this topic at this time of day, but still. I think it highlights a fundamental difference in character of various factions of ILX.

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:09 (twenty years ago)

that last sentence will open a really stupid can of worms.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:12 (twenty years ago)

I mean, don't you ever read a thread title and think "Ah, I knew this was a Gareth/N/Ed/(insert your favourite poster here) thread?" that, to me, implies a kind of "ownership" or at least custodianship.

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:12 (twenty years ago)

i don't know what one thing has to do with another.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:13 (twenty years ago)

When I start a thread, I plant a seed. I don't think I'm the soil, the sun, the water, or the CO2 in the air. I also don't think I know what the flower is going to look like, and I don't have any vested interest in wanting it to look one way over another.

― I do feel guilty for getting any perverse amusement out of it (Rock Hardy), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:13 (twenty years ago)

In the same way that if you start a conversation with someone, you don't haul them back if the conversation goes off topic - you just go with it. I feel it should be the same way with threads - if the thread wanders off, you put it back on track by saying something interesting about the original topic, or you let it go. The guy who started the thread, in my opinion, DOESN'T then have a stake in how the thread develops. FFS, it's all about chatting about stuff, ILX is not an art project.

― Come Back Johnny B (Johnney B), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:14 (twenty years ago)

it seems naive or hopelessly optimistic to expect people to obey/fulfil the expectations of thread starters, esp. those who have a certain reputation (as most of the most frequent ILXers will be in possession of) and esp. when the subject is one as universal and open to different points of views as 'what's funny and why'. 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, 10 November 2005 16:15 (twenty years ago)

But it does extend to curtailing digressions which fundamentally change the character of what your topic was if it destroys the original.

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.)

― n/a (Nick A.), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:15 (twenty years ago)

I often don't even notice who started a thread (not the case here, obviously), so I may not even realize that it's the one what started it that's telling me to get with the program. My feeling is that a thread-starter has the right to object to derailments and ask for people to keep their heads where he or she wants them, but people also have the right to ignore it or disagree or whatever else, innit. I'm not sure it's about rights, so much, anyway.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:15 (twenty years ago)

As for the posting getting increasingly silly, i think it's up to whoever started the thread to try to direct things back towards the argument at hand.

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...

― kingfish orange creamsicle (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:16 (twenty years ago)

Some threads are more open to interpretation than others. But if a person starts a thread wishing to discuss a certain topic then I don't think it's unrealistic for them to request that the discussion stick to that topic.

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:16 (twenty years ago)

You make a good point about thread derailment, and it IS annoying when people don't have the discipline to keep a thread on topic, but it only takes one of two people to haul it back. For recent examples look at the Anarchy in Paris thyread, where the topic occasionally wobbles, but is bought back by people making clever valid points and bringing up new inetresting stuff that's on topic.

― Come Back Johnny B (Johnney B), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:17 (twenty years ago)

William has the right idea. I mean, sometimes I hope that some good or useful discussion will happen from a thread I start, but that's usually a pleasant surprise when it does. I'm probably happier that any discussion has come from it.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:17 (twenty years ago)

I don't give a damn how it evolves. Halfjokingly: I'm already happy if someone visits my thread and replies to it. But seriously, there's nothing you can do about the evolution of a thread. I can understand you would like to control it... S/he may have started it, once it's posted, s/he can only ever be a contributor and have as much influence as the others posting.

― Nathalie, the Queen of Frock 'n' Fall (stevie nixed), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:18 (twenty years ago)

OMG see what happens when somebody disagrees with you!!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:18 (twenty years ago)

x-x-x-post

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.

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:18 (twenty years ago)

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?

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:20 (twenty years ago)

Thread sometimes develop two tracks—the original starter's conversation, and the peanut gallery. That's fine. Someone will usually "xpost" to respond to meaty topics.
Meat.
Meaty Topics.
And if they don't, well, that's sad.

― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:20 (twenty years ago)

I knew this was a Kate thread before I clicked on it.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:20 (twenty years ago)

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), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:21 (twenty years ago)

I'd like to agree with you Kate, but I actually don't. Mostly, because, in practice, even the most 'serious' on-topic threads morph into petty squabbles, trolling, absurdity, and what not. Expecting this not to happen is simply setting yourself up for disappointment. 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.

― M. White (Miguelito), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:21 (twenty years ago)

(that's true, not a joke, btw. I only mention it cause you did it to me yesterday!)

But ILE threads aren't conversations with a friend!

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:22 (twenty years ago)

But if a person starts a thread wishing to discuss a certain topic then I don't think it's unrealistic for them to request that the discussion stick to that topic.

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.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:22 (twenty years ago)

Also, if it were really serious, I wouldn't be talking about it on ILX.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:22 (twenty years ago)

(that was an xpost)

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:25 (twenty years ago)

it'd be more fucked up if i was discussing something serious and then like some guy i barely know put a picture of a monkey playing tennis in front of my face.

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.

― g-kit (g-kit), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:26 (twenty years ago)

"Meta" is an anagram of "Meat." One should never abandon the "meat" of the thread, unless it's tripe. But the plate has to have garnishes to delight the eye. Radish roses.

― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:26 (twenty years ago)

Please stay on topic, Beth.

― I do feel guilty for getting any perverse amusement out of it (Rock Hardy), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:28 (twenty years ago)

Results 1 - 10 of about 14,800,000 for broken thread. (0.20 seconds)

― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:28 (twenty years ago)

http://skatefairy.com/france%20mj%20sad%20face.jpg(img spam deleted by your surly moderator)

― Jdubz (ex machina), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:29 (twenty years ago)

When a thread gets derailed (like, completely) it's usually because it deserves it. There, I said it.

xpost That's funny! See, like, monkeys DON"T NORMALLY PLAY TENNIS BUT NOW THEY ARE.
-- giboyeux (in....), November 10th, 2005 10:17 AM. (skowly) (later)
Alright, who's going to be the first to post a funnye picture of a monkey cowboy riding on a dog's back?
As an aside: can we formalize some kind of ILx-specific Godwin's law that deals with the certainty of all threads eventually succumbing to a blizzard of silly gag pictures?

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

― giboyeux (skowly), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:30 (twenty years ago)

:: pat ::

― Jdubz (ex machina), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:30 (twenty years ago)

[ trolling deleted]

― Jdubz (ex machina), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:31 (twenty years ago)

OMG see what happens when somebody disagrees with you!!

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

― kingfish orange creamsicle (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:31 (twenty years ago)

that photo did make me laugh, but the spamming of it did not - such a maelstrom of emotion inside!

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:32 (twenty years ago)

it's kinda like pirates.
BOARD 'EM! and all that.

― g-kit (g-kit), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:33 (twenty years ago)

If by ownership, you mean interest, then yes.

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.

― Big Loud Mountain Ape (Big Loud Mountain Ape), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:33 (twenty years ago)

When a thread gets derailed (like, completely) it's usually because it deserves it. There, I said it.

OTM

― n/a (Nick A.), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:34 (twenty years ago)

http://skatefairy.com/france%20mj%20sad%20face.jpg

― Jdubz (ex machina), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:40 (twenty years ago)

There is a happy medium between high-school debate club and manic monkey tennis—the high-wire we awesomely skilled posters walk with grace and aplomb.

― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:40 (twenty years ago)

OK, I knew this thread would go into meltdown in a few posts, and I'd be unable to keep up shortly, but still:

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.

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:41 (twenty years ago)

disappointed at the lack of pictures of monkeys with tennis rackets on this thread, quite frankly.

― Ste (Fuzzy), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:42 (twenty years ago)

[jon says HI DERE --mod]

― Jdubz (ex machina), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:43 (twenty years ago)

Thank you for finally using your powers for good.

― n/a (Nick A.), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:44 (twenty years ago)

― Jdubz (ex machina), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:44 (twenty years ago)

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

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:44 (twenty years ago)

[consider point proven with penis pics --mod]

― Jdubz (ex machina), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:45 (twenty years ago)

nsfw --mod

― Jdubz (ex machina), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:46 (twenty years ago)

I AM THE CSS MASTER

― Jdubz (ex machina), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:47 (twenty years ago)

tbh, it's on topic, too.

this thread got owned.

― g-kit (g-kit), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:51 (twenty years ago)

Skipping 221 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

seriously. THE LECTURING ENDS NOW.

― stockholm cindy is in your extended network (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 14 November 2005 05:01 (twenty years ago)

stupid message boards need the most attention

― strongo hulkington's ghost (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 November 2005 05:02 (twenty years ago)

i was given shit by the bullies as a kid too, but jesus, at least i grew a spine and got on with things.

― stockholm cindy is in your extended network (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 14 November 2005 05:03 (twenty years ago)

i wonder what would happen if every time someone had the urge to seriously post to a thread like this they went off and masturbated instead

― strongo hulkington's ghost (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 November 2005 05:05 (twenty years ago)

population control

― stockholm cindy is in your extended network (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 14 November 2005 05:06 (twenty years ago)

haha i dont think a lot of people concerned with message board meta are at a high risk for breeding

― strongo hulkington's ghost (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 November 2005 05:08 (twenty years ago)

"instead"

― j blount (papa la bas), Monday, 14 November 2005 05:08 (twenty years ago)

Dee the Wetblanket

― amon (eman), Monday, 14 November 2005 05:12 (twenty years ago)

Now all I can think of is the Comic Book Guy on The Simpsons proclaiming from the gazebo that, from now on "in accordance with the rules of the planet Vulcan, the most logical planet in the universe, breeding will take place once every seven years."

― k/l (Ken L), Monday, 14 November 2005 05:20 (twenty years ago)

I refuse to take any words of "advice" from someone who suddenly and mysteriously decided to start having an issue with me a few months ago and didn't even bother to broach it in an upfront, unobfuscated manner. Oh, and it surprises me not at all that certain individuals are crying like a baby because I'm calling them out on their "I can't take anything seriously at all lest life catch up with me" bullshit. "Dee the Wetblanket"? Why, because I'm demanding that you and your e-cronies stop behaving like asses everywhere? Well, fuck, I guess I didn't read in the dictionary that maturity has to = being a "wetblanket".

― This Field Left Blank (Dee the Lurker), Monday, 14 November 2005 05:22 (twenty years ago)

dude, some of us have, like, jobs!

― strongo hulkington's ghost (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 November 2005 05:23 (twenty years ago)

life catches up with me every damn day

― strongo hulkington's ghost (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 November 2005 05:23 (twenty years ago)

and i'm just as much of a snot in it

― strongo hulkington's ghost (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 November 2005 05:24 (twenty years ago)

i didn't read in the thesaurus that "narcissism" is a synonym for "maturity"

― j blount (papa la bas), Monday, 14 November 2005 05:26 (twenty years ago)

the levels of sexual frustration on this thread are going to tear ilx apart

― strongo hulkington's ghost (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 November 2005 05:28 (twenty years ago)

Look, certain individuals cope with things in a certain manner. To demand that people either react to jerks in a similarly jerk-like jokey manner or to ignore the jerkish reactions period is insanely arrogant, far more so than to demand that every single thread on here be a serious one, WHICH I WAS NOT PROPOSING AT ALL.

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 Field Left Blank (Dee the Lurker), Monday, 14 November 2005 05:34 (twenty years ago)

"Sexual frustration"? Mmm hmmm. Yeah. Suuuuuuuure.

― This Field Left Blank (Dee the Lurker), Monday, 14 November 2005 05:36 (twenty years ago)

dee what are your feelings on the declining standards of bathroom grafitti?

― strongo hulkington's ghost (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 November 2005 05:37 (twenty years ago)

do you feel internet message boards have superceded them?

― strongo hulkington's ghost (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 November 2005 05:37 (twenty years ago)

perhaps a revolving power scheme is the solution, 33 kings, each with 17 advisors.

― Ronan (Ronan), Monday, 14 November 2005 12:07 (twenty years ago)

Excelsior Syndrome is a serious condition.

― Sororah T Massacre (blueski), Monday, 14 November 2005 12:13 (twenty years ago)

best thread ever

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Monday, 14 November 2005 12:15 (twenty years ago)

I think Dee's point is a good one, myself, FWIW. (FWIW=0 probably, I realise) "excelcior"-itis probably fucked this place up more than c*l*m did, really.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Monday, 14 November 2005 12:55 (twenty years ago)

No this Excelsior thing is bullshit. People have always made snappy quips on threads, before the quote threads existed (they begat them). Still if it is HAS increased, maybe it's just because ILX has exhausted so many subjects in terms of fresh material.

― Sororah T Massacre (blueski), Monday, 14 November 2005 13:12 (twenty years ago)

if i were strongo and j blount i would have had a wank each after each of their posts, i think. i'd have gotten turned on by that.

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 14 November 2005 13:18 (twenty years ago)

I haven't read an excelsior thread in years, but I'm still pretty likely to post a joke if I think of one, because many people like jokes and enjoy reading them. I'll also engage with serious subjects pretty often, but it's become more common for me to think that it isn't worth it, because I don't care or I dislike how the thread has been going or I don't fancy engaging with the people or whatever, so maybe proportionately I do post more quips now than I used to.

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.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 14 November 2005 13:36 (twenty years ago)

You know, Dee, when you stop telling friends of mine via IM that I can fuck off for no rational or even obvious reason, particularly since I have never been anything but nice to you, I will take your comments on maturity seriously.

― Dan (Two-Faced Psycho) Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 14 November 2005 15:39 (twenty years ago)

I don't understand what the hell any of you are even referring to with the Excelsior Syndrome? I mean, yeah, Steve kind of OTM that a lot of people around here have been like that since long before those stupid ass excelsior threads were started. The only way this makes sense to me is if you are all obliquely referring to the painful wannabe Jon Stewarts/Oscar Wildes of which ILX has PERHAPS 10 at most???

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

― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Monday, 14 November 2005 22:08 (twenty years ago)

more liek jon williamz

― bato (bato), Monday, 14 November 2005 22:15 (twenty years ago)

ally what's your take on the bathroom graffito issue?

― strongo hulkington's ghost (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 November 2005 22:30 (twenty years ago)

I haven't really seen any recently, DC seems woefully lacking in graffiti, besides one guy named "Borf" who keeps graffiting his name on post boxes, hundreds of them. Not really quality but admirable dedication.

― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Monday, 14 November 2005 22:37 (twenty years ago)

i saw some in the wilmington amtrak station last night that said "RIP Yoda" which i thought was quite charming

― strongo hulkington's ghost (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 November 2005 22:40 (twenty years ago)

The best I ever saw was in the 72nd St subway station, where someone had scrawled "BOB SAGET MOTHERFUCKERS" on a trash can. That phrase will never leave my mind.

― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Monday, 14 November 2005 22:43 (twenty years ago)

borf sounds awesome

― howell huser (chaki), Monday, 14 November 2005 22:43 (twenty years ago)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/laurae55/decliningstandards.jpg

― Laura H. (laurah), Monday, 14 November 2005 23:22 (twenty years ago)

Borf got arrested. 17-19 year old dude with the most hilariously over-the-top anarchosyndicalist political views, like, ever.

He also did stencils, right?

― giboyeux (skowly), Monday, 14 November 2005 23:26 (twenty years ago)

He got arrested?? Lame, totally lame.

― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Monday, 14 November 2005 23:27 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, there's an article about somewhere...

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

― giboyeux (skowly), Monday, 14 November 2005 23:28 (twenty years ago)

three years pass...

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)

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 17:09 (seventeen 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."

― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 17:53 (seventeen years ago)

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

― jaymc, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 17:56 (seventeen years ago)

;_;

― creator of 2008's most successful meme (velko), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 18:07 (seventeen years ago)

this thread =

― ⊂⊃ ⊂⊃ ⊂⊃ ⊂⊃ ⊂⊃ ⊂⊃ (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 18:16 (seventeen years ago)

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

― goole, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 18:21 (seventeen years ago)

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.

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 18:24 (seventeen years ago)

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

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 18:27 (seventeen years ago)

The topic of which I claim ownership is:
guinea pigs

― Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 18:40 (seventeen years ago)

SOLD!

― Manchego Bay (G00blar), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 18:46 (seventeen years ago)

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.

― Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 18:48 (seventeen years ago)

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

RC SCOOTIE PIE U R MIEN NOW

― Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 18:49 (seventeen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.