OFF TOPIC

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Ianonabike

Regular
I doubt this will go anywhere, but nothing ventured, etc. Oh, and sorry to shout.

The idea is if you're annoyed at some tangent a thread has taken, bring the conversation here.

If you can.
 
Last edited:

CXRAndy

Squire
Isn't that very nature of general conversation, it meanders off topic, comes back etc.

Threads on forums are very much the same, even more so, as there can many contributors all wanting to get their points out
 

Psamathe

Veteran
Re: "Likes"
(Off any topic): I wish the "like" system had options for "agree" and disagree". I will often agree with a post but "like" is ambiguous eg where the post is highlighting some bad news and "like" could mean one agrees with the post or that you "like" what happened (the bad thing eg some far right might think good).
 

briantrumpet

Legendary Member
Brian Trumpet has tried this multiple times. All you get is two discussions on the same topic.

Generally if a topic is going to be interesting/contentious, it deserves a thread of its own. The 'breaking news' one was just for odds & sods that don't really go anywhere. Tangents are fun & fine, but if the same topic starts dominating multiple threads, it gets tedious (a bit like a committee meeting where the chair allows two or three conversations to go on at the same time). Some topics obviously cross over boundaries (especially international topics), so there is plenty of latitude with those sorts of things.

It's ironic really, as I'm a date-based-filing-system kind of chap with assorted paperwork at home, but when I write stuff down I can't be doing with sketchy 'mind maps' with lines going everywhere, and like hierarchical lists as it clarifies my thinking sorting out the lists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R
OP
OP
Ianonabike

Ianonabike

Regular
sorry, I dont follow? (not unusual) 😊
You suggested a new thread, presumably because you thought that one was going too far off topic. It seems reasonable to assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that was to do with all the posts concerning Monkers. I decided to start a more general thread rather than call this one 'Does anybody here take Monkers seriously?' (Using a dead relative's account? Seriously? Not to mention really nasty shit like this getting handwaved away.) It would be nice to always play the ball not the man, but I don't see anybody sticking to that. It's human nature to judge the person as well as the post.
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
You suggested a new thread, presumably because you thought that one was going too far off topic. It seems reasonable to assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that was to do with all the posts concerning Monkers. I decided to start a more general thread rather than call this one 'Does anybody here take Monkers seriously?' (Using a dead relative's account? Seriously? Not to mention really nasty shit like this getting handwaved away.) It would be nice to always play the ball not the man, but I don't see anybody sticking to that. It's human nature to judge the person as well as the post.

Correct.

I didn't wish to partake in the dead relative discussion, but, if others did, so be it, I just preferred that they do it elsewhere.

I always endeavour to play the ball, not the man (or, should that be person?), if I fail in that endeavour, I have no issue with receiving a yellow card. 😊
 

Rusty Nails

Country Member
Life doesn't always fit into neat silos. I like it that way.

This isn't the Oxford Debating Society or an office meeting with a strict agenda, more like a group of people chatting down the pub or over a coffee. When I am down the pub with my friends we have been known to have two or three conversations going on at the same time. We can all multitask.

Sidetracks are fine, as long as they get back on line without total derailment.



Some people will probably be upset if someone stays on topic too long on this thread.
 

monkers

Shaman
You suggested a new thread, presumably because you thought that one was going too far off topic. It seems reasonable to assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that was to do with all the posts concerning Monkers. I decided to start a more general thread rather than call this one 'Does anybody here take Monkers seriously?' (Using a dead relative's account? Seriously? Not to mention really nasty shit like this getting handwaved away.) It would be nice to always play the ball not the man, but I don't see anybody sticking to that. It's human nature to judge the person as well as the post.

We had a few words about that language on those occasions as it happened - but then I read some of the nasty stuff being said to her.

As monkers was becoming more ill, I was providing updates to her health. Occasionally people were asking questions and sending pms which I was replying to. There was a kind of organic transition rather than a switch. I did look to change the avatar name but I couldn't see a way of doing that. I also looked to delete the account, but I couldn't see a way to do that either. By this point, people became aware of me here as N. I do understand that may have caused a bit of confusion to people who are new here, but the posting history will show that there was no deception. As Rusty Nails easily demonstrated, I was not discovered, not ''outed'' as suggested, not ''outed'' by my own posting, not ''outed'' as not being the niece of monkers, and not ''outed'' as a trans woman. What you have witnessed is part of a long-running campaign to discredit first monkers, and then me presumably due to their objection to trans women in society who they feel should be excluded from every activity, including posting here.

I don't have a history of using social media, I don't have other accounts elsewhere. Whether you take the content of my posts seriously or not is a matter only for you, and I don't feel I need to have any interest in that.
 
OP
OP
Ianonabike

Ianonabike

Regular
So - it's just going to end up being another trans-hate thread, isn't it?

Just like every other fücking thread does.
The only hate I see is the post I linked to where Monkers repeatedly called AuroraSaab a "vicious little / vile / dim-witted / lying" cunt. Which I see has just been handwaved away yet again. But as Rusty Nails said, it's not the Oxford Debating Society – for all I know they call people that all the time.
 

monkers

Shaman
The only hate I see is the post I linked to where Monkers repeatedly called AuroraSaab a "vicious little / vile / dim-witted / lying" cunt. Which I see has just been handwaved away yet again. But as Rusty Nails said, it's not the Oxford Debating Society – for all I know they call people that all the time.

The most interesting thing is that you started this thread to get away from it, but it is you that brought that same argument alive here, and are perpetuating it. Perhaps the cure to ''the problem'' is to stop wanging on about it?
 
Top Bottom