Not exact matches
If most of the
articles were of interest to the vast majority on here and also actually
said something new or gave a fresh insight or viewpoint, then it would be good to keep to the
thread subject.
Here we go again with another pointless Diaz bros
thread which I can't blame MMAMANIA for since the basement dwelling cult of Diaz fans all have a group orgasm every time some pointless
article drops about their favorite «do nothing» entertainer
says or acts like some sort of gangster.
And while people may believe what they are
saying to be true, it does not need to become central to every comment
thread in every
article here at SAH by several vocal, disgruntled commenters (I'm being a bit hyperbolic, but you get the point).
It's all good and well for the people who write
articles, because they'll get to see an entire
thread talking about what they've
said in their
article.
This
article talks about the latch system, but then goes on to
say the seatbelt should be
threaded through the seat - I do not believe it is necessary to do both the latch and the seat belt is it?
Asked to leave our community board for continuing posting «facts» when others would post inflammatory
articles like, «Just
Say No to Pitocin» and I would go, «Uh, yeah, but wait...» At one point I had 40 grown women devote a
thread to informing me that I had completely ruined their forum, when I refused to leave it out of principle, having broken no rules.
«In this vast tapestry,» Corwin
said in an
article published in Cooper Union's 1987 Annual Report, «many unbroken
threads lead back to the glacial era.
Well, beyond my own sick and twisted perversion of not only reading comment
threads on posts /
articles about LGBTQ research but actually cataloguing
said comments, I've also recently found myself thrown into the deep end of the Internet cesspool of nasty comments on LGBTQ research, or more specifically, my LGBTQ research.