Threads you will never click on

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,346]

7 minutes ago, Genfærd said:

 

We only seek death here.

Sounds satanic...

[Genfærd 452]

8 minutes ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

Sounds satanic...

 

Haha, oh wow. You're right. Can someone else paraphrase it better than me?

[Banana 859]

7 hours ago, Genfærd said:

 

Haha, oh wow. You're right. Can someone else paraphrase it better than me?

 

No you were spot on

[Great Uncle Bulgaria 1,290]

The Shadow Lists thread. Just lots of people saying how they are beating the committee  - in many cases by the simple tactic of including  a number of people who aren't (IMO) famous.

[Charlotte's Controller 195]

On 11/03/2021 at 13:45, Windsor said:

Room 101

 

Thats just for all the moaning bastards...

 

Isn't that what the forum is for? For the proper English does not this translate as lively debate?

[arghton 6,763]

Most sports-related threads except the Olympics threads. Haven't been a big fan of following a specific sport ever.

Philanthropists and some tv-related threads.

 

Out of the threads made for individuals (Don't seem like they're dying and don't know most of them):

Gazza

Richard O'Sullivan

All the perfectly healthy under 75-year olds that have a thread in case they happen to die in some kind of an accident.

"Uses/used drugs" type of people and 6ix9nine

[Jeremy Corbyn 89]

The Tory thread 

[Redrumours 861]

The Birth thread is  pointless.

[TQR 14,405]

15 hours ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

The Tory thread 

Could you narrow it down?

[msc 18,480]

1 hour ago, Redrumours said:

The Birth thread is  pointless.

 

*The thread of the Recently Shagged is what we're now calling it. 

 

Awaiting mod approval on that one!

 

[Toast 16,155]

45 minutes ago, msc said:

 

*The thread of the Recently Shagged is what we're now calling it. 

 

Awaiting mod approval on that one!

 

 

It's not necessarily so though, is it?  With all these people "welcoming" babies, which conveniently covers up for the ones who have paid someone else to carry and give birth to them.

[En Passant 3,743]

Gladdens my heart to see the love for that thread has propelled it above even the completely pointless university presidents and tuskagee airmen ones in the most hated contest (though they are still worthy). Warm rosy glow for the rest of the day.

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,346]

4 hours ago, Redrumours said:

The Birth thread is  pointless.

Without birth there would be no death and hence no deathlist forums or deadpooling!

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,346]

1 hour ago, Toast said:

 

It's not necessarily so though, is it?  With all these people "welcoming" babies, which conveniently covers up for the ones who have paid someone else to carry and give birth to them.

Which  celebrities/ famous people do you reckon have  secretley used surrogates?

[Toast 16,155]

Just now, Gooseberry Crumble said:

Which  celebrities/ famous people do you reckon have  secretley used surrogates?

 

No idea, they don't interest me.  But I am suspicious about the phrase "welcomed".  People never used to say that.  They said they'd had a baby, or given birth to one.

[En Passant 3,743]

5 minutes ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

Without birth there would be no death and hence no deathlist forums or deadpooling!

 

Straw man.

Without agriculture and animal husbandry there would be no food.

This does not mean that those who like to watch Masterchef or any of a plethora of other cooking programmes or even just eat should necessarily have any interest in a subscription to 'Farming Today' nor, as you are doing, in having it shoved through their letterbox.

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,346]

2 hours ago, En Passant said:

 

Straw man.

Without agriculture and animal husbandry there would be no food.

This does not mean that those who like to watch Masterchef or any of a plethora of other cooking programmes or even just eat should necessarily have any interest in a subscription to 'Farming Today' nor, as you are doing, in having it shoved through their letterbox.

Shoved? Clicking on any thread is voluntary. 

Birth and death are legitimate  subjects for threads and it could be argued my thread is real time observation  of sociological  trends!

 

For instance it could be said to document any statistical  differences and trends  in  the early 21st century  Western  world  of say

 

The difference in family sizes by wealth eg a higher proportion of premiership  footballers as one example  having 3 or 4 children compared to the general  population.  Does that mean high achieving sporty and athletic  people are more likely to breed more? A side effect of them being more competitive? Or is it solely  driven by wealth?

That in itself  opens up questions  about whether most or significantly  more people would like larger families but are inhibited by income. If barriers of income and other practical  barriers are removed and circumstances are optimal and childcare for instance  can be hired full time  would the natural average family size increase across the board or is it a function of those who's personalities are more driven and able to be high achievers?

Also documents  the increase in surrogacy  although  as @Toast implies not all declare  it. The increase in surrogacy and the lessening of the taboo is a distinct  21st century real phenomenon. 

As is the increase in same sex  parenting,  chosen single parenthood etc.

Other trends, increase in men becoming first time fathers later in age or making second or third families  much older in life eg Jon Snow in his seventies. Bernie Eccleston  aged 89 .A discussion could then be had about the morality of that  and if such things losing some of their taboo is desirable  . I remember when the late  Hollywood legend  Charles Bronson became a father aged around  77 and the media furore and negative  commentary it caused. What's changed and why?

Trends on second,  third etc families, trends on marrying between the classes etc are all documented and open to discussion. 

Are some trends going in reverse? Are they good bad or neutral  developments? Eg fall in pregnancies before age of 21.

A thread to some extent is as good as bad as what you make . There  is lots to be discussed if you want to  just as there is with death.

 

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,346]

28 minutes ago, Toast said:

 

No idea, they don't interest me.  But I am suspicious about the phrase "welcomed".  People never used to say that.  They said they'd had a baby, or given birth to one.

Isn't welcomed a phrase that has been used for a long time rather than a new phenomenon?

[En Passant 3,743]

26 minutes ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

Shoved? Clicking on any thread is voluntary. 

 

 

Indeed so.

And yet - there may be something interesting in that local paper or magazine that gets 'shoved' through your letterbox at home once a month or whatever,  who knows though because it's buried in 350 pages of advertising most people can't be bothered with?

From letterbox to recycling bin in one easy move.

We may not be at that point here yet, but the more of this crud there is....the harder to find anything of interest. Waste enough time marking everything read (not just yours, but tuskagee, university etc etc) and you end up not bothering with the whole site.

 

Anyway, I detest OK and Hello and everything they stand for, having it appear on 'unread content' here annoys me. You'll keep posting it, I'll keep moaning about it. The world goes on.

 

I did you the courtesy (I'm not an animal ) of reading the rest but question its relevance.

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,346]

7 minutes ago, En Passant said:

 

Indeed so.

And yet - there may be something interesting in that local paper or magazine that gets 'shoved' through your letterbox at home once a month or whatever,  who knows though because it's buried in 350 pages of advertising most people can't be bothered with?

From letterbox to recycling bin in one easy move.

We may not be at that point here yet, but the more of this crud there is....the harder to find anything of interest. Waste enough time marking everything read (not just yours, but tuskagee, university etc etc) and you end up not bothering with the whole site.

 

Anyway, I detest OK and Hello and everything they stand for, having it appear on 'unread content' here annoys me. You'll keep posting it, I'll keep moaning about it. The world goes on.

 

I did you the courtesy (I'm not an animal ) of reading the rest but question its relevance.

But the thread title makes it very clear what it is about!

For a pointless thread it seems to have quite a few more views than this thread if you care to look!

 

The bottom line is something not being of interest to someone is not the same as it being pointless per se.

Up to a point  a thread is what people  make of it and those sociological trends and observations are real and much discussed outside this thread and in the media and elsewhere. 

[En Passant 3,743]

9 minutes ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

The bottom line is something not being of interest to someone is not the same as it being pointless per se.

 

 

Semantics, it is, by very definition and even the title "deathlist". 

 

I

11 minutes ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

For a pointless thread it seems to have quite a few more views than this thread if you care to look!

 

 

You know I looked . I'd hazard most of those views are you posting and me complaining.

[Toast 16,155]

53 minutes ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

Isn't welcomed a phrase that has been used for a long time rather than a new phenomenon?

 

Not in this context, no.

 

54 minutes ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

A thread to some extent is as good as bad as what you make . There  is lots to be discussed if you want to  just as there is with death.

 

But we don't.

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,346]

Just now, En Passant said:

 

Semantics, it is, by very definition and even the title "deathlist". 

 

I

 

You know I looked . I'd hazard most of those views are you posting and me complaining.

It's not semantics! Lots of non death topics are discussed on this forum  ! People complaining about the thread content when the title makes it clear what's inside the tin is a bit daft and dare I say pointless...!!?,

 

I seriously  doubt we have looked  that much to boost the numbers like that!!

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,346]

1 minute ago, Toast said:

 

Not in this context, no.

 

 

But we don't.

As is your right!

Would you go into a shop buy a tin that says on it red salmon , go home open the tin and complain that the bloody tin contains  red salmon?!

[Toast 16,155]

4 minutes ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

As is your right!

Would you go into a shop buy a tin that says on it red salmon , go home open the tin and complain that the bloody tin contains  red salmon?!

 

No, because I don't like tinned salmon.