The Official "Shut the Hell Up with the Official Threads Already" Thread - Page 2

seeker007nmss · #16 02-27-2007, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nixxxed

A goose!

Fluff away!

I won't be posting anymore of them since it seems to annoy people too much. Now your pages will load faster and the bandwidth is saved. Enjoy.

Sugar · #17 02-27-2007, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

So you're saying that there is/was/still going on, an initial wrong?

Just curious...

I believe Brian's point is (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) that there were about 5 or 6 of you that perceived there to be an initial wrong who then decided to become part of the problem (as these people saw it) rather than just move on. I guess it was revenge or some sort of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" mentality.

For the record, I've found all of this to be very interesting and have already commented to the other mods that all of this would make quite a psychology thesis.

JazmenFlowers · #18 02-27-2007, 09:44 AM

damn I must be stupid or naive or both cause I really thought all the new threads were making fun of the threadmakers themselves and/or to get some activity on the board.

I never really looked at it as "making fun" or anything like that. I think some people may want to assume that, but as Lisa stated in another thread, we know what assuming does...

Sugar · #19 02-27-2007, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JazmenFlowers

damn I must be stupid or naive or both cause I really thought all the new threads were making fun of the threadmakers themselves and/or to get some activity on the board.

I never really looked at it as "making fun" or anything like that. I think some people may want to assume that, but as Lisa stated in another thread, we know what assuming does...

Well, I suppose none of us know for sure, only the threadmakers. But there's a difference between an assumption and an educated guess. It would be quite the coincidence if the events as of late just happened to all occur at the same time. But I suppose it's possible.

carrie721 · #20 02-27-2007, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JazmenFlowers

damn I must be stupid or naive or both cause I really thought all the new threads were making fun of the threadmakers themselves and/or to get some activity on the board.

hello? yes. at least on my behalf.

Sugar · #21 02-27-2007, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carrie721

hello? yes. at least on my behalf.

I'm glad you clarified, because it certainly seems as though a number of people (just by looking at the posts in this thread) may not have seen things that way.

JazmenFlowers · #22 02-27-2007, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sugar

Well, I suppose none of us know for sure, only the threadmakers. But there's a difference between an assumption and an educated guess. It would be quite the coincidence if the events as of late just happened to all occur at the same time. But I suppose it's possible.

well it's fairly dangerous to do either I suppose.

and I also think it's dangerous for moderators to do either every chance they get. it seems like at any point, one could be blamed for "making fun" of _______. my point is that all these threads have, for the most part, been lighthearted. "someone" mentions that these threads may be directly related to another "incident" and then everyone just assumes/guesses that that's what they are. hell, I can't even mention some of the players or plays for these very same reasons.

see?

Quote:

Originally Posted by carrie721

hello? yes. at least on my behalf.

I know girl...I know.

danax6 · #23 02-27-2007, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sugar

Well, I suppose none of us know for sure, only the threadmakers. But there's a difference between an assumption and an educated guess. It would be quite the coincidence if the events as of late just happened to all occur at the same time. But I suppose it's possible.

If coincidences are just coincidences, why do they feel so contrived?

And yes, it's getting old.

JazmenFlowers · #24 02-27-2007, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sugar

I'm glad you clarified, because it certainly seems as though a number of people (just by looking at the posts in this thread) may not have seen things that way.

no, a lot of people may be speculating and inciting.

and moderators are being swayed.

at least, that's the way it seems.

sara1998 · #25 02-27-2007, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

I think -perhaps- we're seeing a response.......to something or other........

Nevermind.
Carry on.

Nope. I see it too. I think there's another reason behind all of it too, but that's just my jaded-ness showing...

carrie721 · #26 02-27-2007, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sugar

I'm glad you clarified, because it certainly seems as though a number of people (just by looking at the posts in this thread) may not have seen things that way.

i've only started one ... make that two ... official threads. i already explained the first one to JS, and the second one is clearly making fun of myself. i don't see how those could have been interpreted any other way.

edit: make that three. but the official festivus poll was ridiculous.

JazmenFlowers · #27 02-27-2007, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

I think -perhaps- we're seeing a response.......to something or other........

Nevermind.
Carry on.

I don't understand. seeing as you created 4 "official" threads that I can easily and readily count.

Sugar · #28 02-27-2007, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JazmenFlowers

well it's fairly dangerous to do either I suppose.

and I also think it's dangerous for moderators to do either every chance they get. it seems like at any point, one could be blamed for "making fun" of _______. my point is that all these threads have, for the most part, been lighthearted. "someone" mentions that these threads may be directly related to another "incident" and then everyone just assumes/guesses that that's what they are. hell, I can't even mention some of the players or plays for these very same reasons.

see?

Again, there's a difference between an educated guess and an assumption. Also, there may have been some things that happened that you may not know about. I don't mean that in an "I-know-better-than-you" sort of way, it's just there's plenty the moderators do that we don't advertise.

"Every chance we get," huh? I'm sorry you feel that way. Really. Fact of the matter is that the mods have intervened very little with regard to recent events. Maybe these threads have been "lighthearted," but obviously there's some folks, and not just mods, who haven't seen things that way. However, no one has been called to task on them. I entered the conversation because I'd rather we all get our cards out on the table than "assume" anything.

It's a very tough line to walk sometimes. Posts get reported to you, and not always by the "victim." We try to weigh everyone's rights and keep the board a welcoming, friendly place, not like an insular club. I suppose some times we do better than others.

Sugar · #29 02-27-2007, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danax6

If coincidences are just coincidences, why do they feel so contrived?

And yes, it's getting old.

Well...yes...but apparently many of us may be assuming too much.

JazmenFlowers · #30 02-27-2007, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sugar

Well...yes...but apparently many of us may be assuming too much.

now isn't that a stab at me? hmmmm?

EDIT: on re-reading, it occured that you may be saying that out of a general response to the thread and not directly to me.