People who have no personal opinion in forums.

[lordlundar]

In particular two types of threads:

1. The "I'm unsure about something, convince me to this other thing." This is usually followed by a really long post that's worded in a fashion strongly to one side, then followed up with one line that usually says "Convince me that I should do the opposite."

Really? Why would I want to waste my time convincing you away from your obvious choice when there's no reason for me to do so. I see it as either you're incapable of making a decision for yourself that even when you've decided, you still want people to make you fee secure in your mind, which is a waste of my time and effort. The other option is that you've already decided and just want to start a flame war, which is below my worth to justify. Either way, these threads are generally worthless and as waste of time to even make them in the first place.

2. When the thread title is some news article found somewhere and the only thing in the thread body is "discuss".

Okay, fine, you're a robotic drone who can't have an opinion for yourself and need other people to form one. For crying out loud, if you give a damn about the subject, give enough of a damn to actually have a discussion. Just putting "discuss" in a thread body is basically saying "I'm too lazy to even have an opinion, let alone a discussion." I'd say you need a lobotomy, but it looks like someone already gave you one.

When you make a post, it says a lot about you. When you start a thread like number one, it says you're either an insecure twat or a troll, and either puts you in a bad light. (triple points if the user name is some horribly butchered version of a pop culture character) When you start a thread like example 2, I'm tempted to report you for running a spam program, because I can't understand why someone would honestly have that little cognitive thought.

[HYHYBT]

For #1: why can it not be, for instance, someone who's logic and gut are in disagreement?

For #2: what's wrong with thinking "those people on Site would probably be interested in this" either without having anything further to say at all, or (perhaps more likely) or while still digesting what you've read, before you know what to say and how?

But mainly, why do you care?

[Rageaholic]

I can see where this can be a pet peeve. I have seen posters on other forums who only post #2 type threads. Not that interesting discussions can't be had from them, but it's just... wierd.

[lordlundar]

For #1: why can it not be, for instance, someone who's logic and gut are in disagreement?

If it was a case of really helping someone decide something, It doesn't bother me as much (though I can think of better places than a pack of strangers to ask it of). The issue is that these tend to be on par to a person asking for your help, then spend the next hour arguing with you how you're wrong.

For #2: what's wrong with thinking "those people on Site would probably be interested in this" either without having anything further to say at all, or (perhaps more likely) or while still digesting what you've read, before you know what to say and how?

Because it's not a case of putting something interesting (most times it's nothing more than a headline in the thread title), but it's a case of apparently wanting to have a discussion but too damn lazy or too damn scared to have a thought of their own. If such an article meant enough to make a thread for it, then it must mean enough to have an opinion of.

But mainly, why do you care?

Apart from it being a pet peeve, it shows just how little the poster thinks of themselves when they do that. They (try to at any rate) give the impression of wanting a meaningful discussion but they don't want to engage in one, then throw a hissy fit when the world doesn't comply.

[Andara Bledin]

For #1: why can it not be, for instance, someone who's logic and gut are in disagreement?

If that were the real issue, they'd post their thoughts, then ask something like, "Am I wrong?" as opposed to, "Change my mind for me." The former is an appeal for more information and either confirmation or refutation. The latter is someone looking for someone to disagree with, because they have on intention of actually changing their mind.

For #2: what's wrong with thinking "those people on Site would probably be interested in this" either without having anything further to say at all, or (perhaps more likely) or while still digesting what you've read, before you know what to say and how?

If it's worth starting a thread over, it's worth putting at least as many words in the body as are in the title of the article being linked.

But mainly, why do you care?

Why do you care that he cares?

As for why I would care, the first is disingenuous at best (and I hate liars), and the second is just lazy.

^-.-^

[Boozy]

2. When the thread title is some news article found somewhere and the only thing in the thread body is "discuss".

That drives me crazy, too.

Sometimes I suspect that those that do this actually do have an opinion about the news article, but are waiting to see which way the wind is blowing before they come out with it.

[Greenday]

That drives me crazy, too.

Sometimes I suspect that those that do this actually do have an opinion about the news article, but are waiting to see which way the wind is blowing before they come out with it.

Sometimes I've done it because I want to see if people even give a crap before wasting my time analyzing it and giving my opinion.

[Mytical]

@Boozy I agree. Sometimes I am guilty of this, because I don't have all the facts, and would like to learn more. Most of the time I will include my thoughts on the matter, but keep an open mind.

I can be stubborn about somethings though, and (maybe too much) vocal about my opinions.

[Boozy]

Sometimes I've done it because I want to see if people even give a crap before wasting my time analyzing it and giving my opinion.

That's valid, although I think you'll find that people are more likely to respond if you offer your own opinion. It gives them something to go on.

[Smithereens]

I don't pay much attention to #1, but I see #2 all the time, on other forums. Sometimes they won't even say anything, they'll just post a link to some other website that's talking about something. I stopped calling people out on it because I just get flamed.

[HYHYBT]

If that were the real issue, they'd post their thoughts, then ask something like, "Am I wrong?" as opposed to, "Change my mind for me." The former is an appeal for more information and either confirmation or refutation. The latter is someone looking for someone to disagree with, because they have on intention of actually changing their mind.

OK... I misunderstood, then. I've never, EVER seen anyone do what you describe, though, much less make a habit of it, which is perhaps why it registered as something else.

If it's worth starting a thread over, it's worth putting at least as many words in the body as are in the title of the article being linked.

So, the complaint is really that people don't describe what they're linking to?

Because it's not a case of putting something interesting (most times it's nothing more than a headline in the thread title), but it's a case of apparently wanting to have a discussion but too damn lazy or too damn scared to have a thought of their own.

How do you know that? It seems like an overly rash and harsh assumption.

If such an article meant enough to make a thread for it, then it must mean enough to have an opinion of.

Why must that be true in all cases for all people? Answer: it's NOT. I cannot possibly be the only person who can read an article and think "that's interesting" without having, at least for the time being, more to say about it. Nor is it even remotely reasonable to declare that nobody has ever either wanted to get something out there when they still needed to mull it over and decide what they think on the subject, or else not had the time, right then, to compose it properly. Nor, so far as I can see, is there anything wrong, or even reasonable to think wrong, with wanting to reserve your own opinion until you've seen those of others.

Why do you care that he cares?

Because without that piece of information, it reads as a blanket, unprovoked condemnation on everyone who has ever done either of those things for perfectly appropriate and rational reasons.

As for why I would care... the second is just lazy.

No. The second CAN be caused by laziness, but also by other reasons, including those I and others have listed.

[lordlundar]

Discuss


That is all that is posted in the body. Not "I find it interesting but I want to find out what other people think", not "I want to find out what other people think before I weigh in", not even a "what do you think?". Just one word. Discuss.

There are so many different ways to promote discussion, most of them work a hell of a lot better, so why don't you tell me how that one word in the body is so much better than any other ways a thread can be started apart from that it takes less typing, which reeks of laziness. So sorry, but no, just typing one word to try and invoke a discussion IS nothing more than laziness.

*sigh* so many ways of communicating, and yet we find less meaningful communication occurring. And when you're unwilling to put any real effort in starting a discussion, why would I want to respond? ANYTHING beyond one word following a headline would be more effective.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Sometimes I've done it because I want to see if people even give a crap before wasting my time analyzing it and giving my opinion.

Same. Also, sometimes I have limited time online and want to just post up the article before I have to go to work, cuz I think people here might be interested. I will always try to go back to it when I can and post my opinion, tho, in that case.

My pet peeve with discussions is people who abuse "this". ie, they quote another post and just post "this" without anything else; the same as people who post "I agree" and then don't expostulate. Grr.

[DrFaroohk]

I saw a family guy like this where Lois and Rush Limbaugh were arguing about somethimg, and with each point Peter would say "well now I agree with you instead", and after a few times he looks at the audience and says "I'm too stupid to make up my own mind!"

I frequently reserve my own opinion because I haven't formed an informed one yet. Especially when it's something of a more abstract nature like right vs. wrong. I might think "Hell, I'm totally against gay marriage!" Because the only thing I've heard about it is negative. Then I'd see a debate on it, and other people would point out things I never thought of, but once I did think of them, consider them and allow the opinion into my head to chew on it a bit, I realize I agree with it, and then I'm like "Hurray for gay marriage!"

As for the single word "discuss"...maybe I want other people's opinions without biasing them with my own. Maybe someone here thinks I'm really stupid so anything I agree with he's going to be inclined to disagree. Maybe someone thinks I'm awesome and he'll be more likely to agree with me.

Is it really that big of a deal? This seems like one of those things where you'd see it in a thread, get pissed off, and then spend a whole lot of time writing a scathing lecture on how someone shouldn't do that, and how it's above your time and effort to respond, but really you spent more time and effort lecturing.

[Andara Bledin]

My pet peeve with discussions is people who abuse "this". ie, they quote another post and just post "this" without anything else; the same as people who post "I agree" and then don't expostulate. Grr.

A lot of times there's just nothing to add. Someone before them has come by and posted precisely what they were going to post, and rather than just regurgitate the same sentiment to no advantage, they quote the earlier poster to give both citation and opinion and move on.

^-.-^