Define "On Topic"

[Brown.Eyed.Girl]

One time on a forum that no longer exists in a land far far away..Someone posted a thread asking about an upcoming vaca to..somewhere, and said meh, he wasn't really excited about going, wanted to know if anyone else had been and what they'd thought. I said I'd never been there, but I felt that way about when my parents invited us to go to Vegas. No interest in it whatsoever, but we thought it would be fun to get away and enjoy ourselves someplace we'd never been. Turned out we had a spectacular time and would love to go back, so to keep an open mind b/c you never know how fun or interesting a place will be until you're there. Someone else then picked up on the Vegas thing and there were a few posts about it, and then the O/P said "MISSI!! ARGH! Don't change the subject!" and put in a fist shaking emotie and a hair pulling emotie.

It was one of the first forums I ever belonged to and I was so horrified that I'd broken some rule just by having a conversation. I do have a tendency to ramble, and I'm aware of it. Sometimes you pick something out of a post and it sticks.

Seriously? I totally see why he wasn't excited about going if he's like THAT - talk about anal-retentive.

Was that off topic?

 

[kenny]

I love kenny, but I think he's overthinking this one...

Overthinking is definitely what I do!
... and I loves ya too.

 

[kenny]

Kenny, I think it sucks when people use "off topic" to hide their censorship.
People should either 1) stop net nannying, or 2) if you're going to do it, own up to it.

Hear Hear!

 

[davi_el_mejor]

I love kenny, but I think he's overthinking this one...

Overthinking is definitely what I do!
... and I loves ya too.

please stay on topic...

 

[monarch64]

I love it when folks try to net nanny the net nannies! Is that on topic?

Ditztoe. I like to net nanny the net nannies who are net nannying the net nannies who are nannying the nannies. Only after a few glasses of good wine, though.

Semi-off topic: can we start a thread about euphemisms for going off topic? Some that come to mind are: net nannying, creating dramz, calling people out, calling b.s....that's all I have for now which is why I think we need a separate thread. There have to be more. Many more.

 

[kenny]

I love it when folks try to net nanny the net nannies! Is that on topic?

Ditztoe. I like to net nanny the net nannies who are net nannying the net nannies who are nannying the nannies. Only after a few glasses of good wine, though.

Semi-off topic: can we start a thread about euphemisms for going off topic? Some that come to mind are: net nannying, creating dramz, calling people out, calling b.s....that's all I have for now which is why I think we need a separate thread. There have to be more. Many more.

Good wine?
Maybe that's why I'm a crummy net nanny.
I drink Two-Buck-Chuck.

I think on-topic and off-topic are just suffering from definition creep just like passive aggressive and that other term my middle-aged brain can't remember now.

 

[monarch64]

I love it when folks try to net nanny the net nannies! Is that on topic?

Ditztoe. I like to net nanny the net nannies who are net nannying the net nannies who are nannying the nannies. Only after a few glasses of good wine, though.

Semi-off topic: can we start a thread about euphemisms for going off topic? Some that come to mind are: net nannying, creating dramz, calling people out, calling b.s....that's all I have for now which is why I think we need a separate thread. There have to be more. Many more.

Good wine?
Maybe that's why I'm a crummy net nanny.
I drink Two-Buck-Chuck.

I think on-topic and off-topic are just suffering from definition creep just like passive aggressive and that other term my middle-aged brain can't remember now.

I would love to have a few cases of two buck chuck in our "wine storage area" right now...remember on another thread a few months ago I mentioned that Aldi is owned by the same co. as Trader Joe's and that Aldi's "Winking Owl" brand tastes EXACTLY the same? It's $2.99, so three buck chuck, but I swear it's the same wine. Anyway...here I am off topic! LOL

Definition creep is a good one!

 

[sillyberry]

::snip::I would love to have a few cases of two buck chuck in our "wine storage area" right now...remember on another thread a few months ago I mentioned that Aldi is owned by the same co. as Trader Joe's and that Aldi's "Winking Owl" brand tastes EXACTLY the same? It's $2.99, so three buck chuck, but I swear it's the same wine. Anyway...here I am off topic! LOL

Definition creep is a good one!

Sadly Two Buck Chuck is no longer true. Definitely Three Buck Chuck these days. Being off-topic is fun!

 

[monarch64]

::snip::I would love to have a few cases of two buck chuck in our "wine storage area" right now...remember on another thread a few months ago I mentioned that Aldi is owned by the same co. as Trader Joe's and that Aldi's "Winking Owl" brand tastes EXACTLY the same? It's $2.99, so three buck chuck, but I swear it's the same wine. Anyway...here I am off topic! LOL

Definition creep is a good one!

Sadly Two Buck Chuck is no longer true. Definitely Three Buck Chuck these days. Being off-topic is fun!

Word. Living in the Chicagoland area around the time "two buck chuck" really became popular, I can attest that it was never really "two bucks"...more like "three bucks" since every time I purchased Charles Shaw wines at my (former) local TJ's it was sold at $2.99. Ah well...what can ya do?

Where, indeed, DID the "two buck chuck" nomer originate? California? I've always wondered.

 

[kenny]

It still is $1.99 here in California.

In some states it's $2.99.

Boy, it's sure hard to stay on topic, but as long as we all remain calm admin will probably not bust us.

 

[monarch64]

It still is $1.99 here in California.

In some states it's $2.99.

Boy, it's sure hard to stay on topic, but as long as we all remain calm admin will probably not bust us.

That's it. I'm moving to California.

 

[Arkteia]

Recently I went horrible off-topic in the emerald discussion and do not know how it happened. It just (vaguely) alluded to history, my first and main hobby...and I jumped on that horse and later looked at my postings and thought, WOW! We started with an emerald and I ended up with Napoleon II. And his illegitimate son?

But no one said a wold, I think, first, because the discussion was nearing its end and second, because it was so-so off...

The situation to which Kenny is alluding is totally different. There is a person, who is curious, passinate about stones and has a great collection. So she expressed her opinion.

And then, somehow, the thread you are alluding to became personal. What really rubbed me the wrong way about another PS-ers posting is that it turned out totally personal. The way it now reads, it appropriate for the Hangout.

 

[galeteia]

Sorry, going to disagree here. Reading your example Kenny, not knowing the people involved, their posting history, possible personality conflicts, etc, the OP seemed to be totally valid in requesting that the thread not get derailed.

When I read the example, I immediately thought of someone posting something like "How to choose a purebred breeder?" and then someone charging in with how designer dogs are wrong, people should adopt from shelters, backyard breeders are evil and should be spayed themselves, personal stories of dogs who would have been put down at a shelters but were rescued from death by the responding poster, designer dogs have health issues, people who contribute to the designer dog industry are at most evil and at least irresponsible, etc etc etc etc

Then you get a flaming mess of a thread debating whether or not the OP was wrong for planning to do what they're doing, and NO ONE is actually addressing the REAL question they asked. They didn't ask if getting a purebred was wrong or right, they asked how to choose a good breeder.

I've actually seen variants of this very thread happen frequently.

Edit: for the record, I'm against designer/purebred dogs being perceived as better than shelter dogs, so when these threads come up, I stay the heck out of them.

 

[kenny]

So apparently it's not so much that someone went "off-topic", it is that they challenge the premise that the topic is based on.

Challenging the premise of the topic is not "off" topic; It is just challenging the premise.
In fact challenging the premise is WAY more on-topic than the discussion of Trader Joe's $1.99 wine in this thread.
But the moderators didn't admonish us to stay on topic when we went off topic about 2-Buck Chuck.

Besides, what's wrong with challenging the premise?
It's a discussion forum.
If someone starts a thread asking how hard you should spank a child I think people who feel you should never spank a child should feel free to offer their opinion.

I don't think my views are sacred either.
If I started a thread about gay marriage I hope people opposing it felt free to offer their perspective too.
IMHO, discussion is healthy and results in progress over the long term.
What a boring place this would be if only posts that are in agreement were allowed.

I don't like the idea that when someone formulates a topic that the topic itself is sacred and cannot be challenged.
What hogwash.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I think people go off topic more on hangout than on colored stone , where the incident occurred. Kenny, you are still fairly new to CS and thus if a longer reader you would have smiled at Doug's comment. They have an ongoing light feud, mostly on Dougs part. He would challenge her anywhere he could. I'm used to it and I think she is as well. Better to just let it go.

I had something like a threadjack happen to me recently. The person who caused the threadjack really didn't mean do it. She just expressed a side of the issue she would like to have discussed and I guess everyone decided that was the side they wished to discuss. It so happened it wasn't what I wanted. But, I let it go because the posters all gave sincere answers to the issue. It was just a discussion. It was fine.

I think you have to take these threads lightly.

Thanks,
Annette