@angryharpy , I wonder if you should change the post title to "@ Hilarious Halloween candy article" just in case?
The words mom and kid are in the title. I was always under the impression that the point of @ was that people would be able to easily avoid things they don’t want to read. I fail to see how @ is somehow better than just using the words to make the post clear. I know I have messed up on this before, but I’m not hiding the content.
It occurred to me that parents of kids who have been harmed - whether by drugs or something else - might be triggered by the title itself. I'm definitely not perfect around the @ issue.
It occurred to me that parents of kids who have been harmed - whether by drugs or something else - might be triggered by the title itself. I'm definitely not perfect around the @ issue.
Nobody has been harmed by marijuana in Halloween candy.
Ok - it was a take or leave suggestion, and not a criticism. I'm fine that you leave it.
@angryharpy , I wonder if you should change the post title to "@ Hilarious Halloween candy article" just in case?
The words mom and kid are in the title. I was always under the impression that the point of @ was that people would be able to easily avoid things they don’t want to read. I fail to see how @ is somehow better than just using the words to make the post clear. I know I have messed up on this before, but I’m not hiding the content.
I genuinely have tried to be sensitive and I have genuinely failed. I just don’t understand why the symbol @ is so much better than clearly putting the word kid in the title. When the rule started, it was due to threads devolving into nothing but child-related stuff and due to blindsiding people with stuff (which I have done inadvertently and which I apologize for). But this level of policing must be exhausting. The word kid was in the title. It was a funny article.
My apologies for attempting to dip my toe back in the water with a gosh darn Reductress article.
Post by seeyalater52 on Oct 6, 2021 11:49:21 GMT -5
I was curious about the initial post since it has now been deleted so I googled and and now I’m confused. Did you really post a Reductress article on this board? Seems like the content is more appropriate for ML or MMM if it’s the article that came up with this title.
I feel like it is an annual tradition for OP to pop in out of nowhere, post about @-related content without the @ and dig in her heels. And in this case, all for an article that wasn’t even all that funny or well-written.
It’s one keystroke. I’ve forgotten it myself, but the answer is to fix it, not come up with reasons your post doesn’t have to follow the rules.
I just don't understand why it's so difficult to just put this shit on ML and MMM. It's like....pretty much all the same posters but kid related content. Derrrp.
Whoa - ok - i definitely wasn't trying to start a pile-on-angryharpy post.
@angryharpy, I'm sorry i didn't just PM you.
@@@@@@@
@ajl - it was a post from reductress that was light-hearted and funny, which is probably what angryharpy was trying to share since it's October and Halloween season. It was a woman who wrote to please put some marijuana edibles in her kids' Halloween candy because she could really use it when they get home.
It probably was, in fact, better content for ML or Drinking While Parenting. But gosh sometimes some levity on this board is nice. I just commented because I (probably being overly sensitive today) thought the actual title of the post could be triggering to parents who have had kids harmed by drugs. I wasn't trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Whoa - ok - i definitely wasn't trying to start a pile-on-angryharpy post.
@angryharpy, I'm sorry i didn't just PM you.
No, don’t be sorry. Calling attention to this issue is appropriate, and you weren’t overly harsh or anything. The OP chronically has this issue - both not using @ when appropriate, and being an ass about it. You’re good, she’s being a brat. Please continue to assist the community here to call attention to a poster as needed to add @ tags. We all appreciate it.
ETA - to address your ETA. You aren’t being overly sensitive. Guidelines and community cooperation are there for a reason. Assisting people on the best or worst days, without making them go through the extra steps of asking people to be kind about it. We should be starting out as kind and empathetic, hence the community standard.
@ should have been used, I'm guessing the article would have been fine to post here, but may not have gotten a lot of responses. Unsure why the gbcn-gbcn, but ok.
I know the OP is gone but I am going to clarify for anyone else wondering. I think the reason the @ symbol is used in thread titles even when the title is clearly @ related is because it's easy for your eyes to skim over a thread when you see it. Rather than having the read the actual words and have them brought to your attention.
I'm CFBC so the content is not painful to me but I still appreciate having that symbol make my life easier. I just don't understand what's so hard about taking a half second to hit two buttons.
I don't understand the resistance to following the rules of the board. If you're not interested in following what's been established, it's a big internet, I'm sure you can find it elsewhere.
I know the OP is gone but I am going to clarify for anyone else wondering. I think the reason the @ symbol is used in thread titles even when the title is clearly @ related is because it's easy for your eyes to skim over a thread when you see it. Rather than having the read the actual words and have them brought to your attention.
I'm CFBC so the content is not painful to me but I still appreciate having that symbol make my life easier. I just don't understand what's so hard about taking a half second to hit two buttons.
Thanks, that makes sense.
I'll be honest I've always wondered the same thing, but since I mostly just lurk it's never really been an issue. I also didn't want to ask because I was worried that it would come across more antagonistic because I've seen a couple posters throw temper tantrums over having to use the @ symbol over the years.
It's never bothered me one way or the other, but I did wonder if there was an actual reason when kids were mentioned in the title or simply the rule because it's clear cut and easy to follow and that way there's no ambiguity (which would also have been fine).
Yikes, I checked in to see if we've started fighting about the Bad Art Friend piece yet. Nope, fighting about board rules and Reductress. *backs out slowly*
*backs back in to see if anyone wants to fight about the Bad Art Friend piece*
Yikes, I checked in to see if we've started fighting about the Bad Art Friend piece yet. Nope, fighting about board rules and Reductress. *backs out slowly*
*backs back in to see if anyone wants to fight about the Bad Art Friend piece*
I don't want to fight but man that article was...something. My final takeaway was that I thought they were all insufferable (Larson, Dorland, and all their friends/frenemies) and they all could/should have handled the entire situation differently from the beginning. I'm actually interested to hear your perspective though, as a writer. Did Larson do anything wrong? Was she a scheming plagiarizer or a writer who was simply inspired by a casual acquaintance's story? I think we can all agree Dorland needs therapy. I actually cringed at some of the things she did.
Yikes, I checked in to see if we've started fighting about the Bad Art Friend piece yet. Nope, fighting about board rules and Reductress. *backs out slowly*
*backs back in to see if anyone wants to fight about the Bad Art Friend piece*
Yikes, I checked in to see if we've started fighting about the Bad Art Friend piece yet. Nope, fighting about board rules and Reductress. *backs out slowly*
*backs back in to see if anyone wants to fight about the Bad Art Friend piece*
I don't want to fight but man that article was...something. My final takeaway was that I thought they were all insufferable (Larson, Dorland, and all their friends/frenemies) and they all could/should have handled the entire situation differently from the beginning. I'm actually interested to hear your perspective though, as a writer. Did Larson do anything wrong? Was she a scheming plagiarizer or a writer who was simply inspired by a casual acquaintance's story? I think we can all agree Dorland needs therapy. I actually cringed at some of the things she did.
& smock - lol I'm only this far in, but this part?
“I left that conference with this question: Do writers not care about my kidney donation? Which kind of confused me, because I thought I was in a community of service-oriented people.”
Actually, no, Dawn. No one cares about your kidney donation except you, the recipient and maybe the doctors. Whew. Therapy, yes.
Yikes, I checked in to see if we've started fighting about the Bad Art Friend piece yet. Nope, fighting about board rules and Reductress. *backs out slowly*
*backs back in to see if anyone wants to fight about the Bad Art Friend piece*
Huh. The original is behind a paywall, so going off the synopsis... Sounds like the person who donated the kidney is attention seeking, but I'm not going to try to diagnose her. The writer shouldn't have lifted her words exactly, especially if they were in a private group. Technically I believe the poster holds the copyright to those posts. Her story isn't her own, though, especially if fictionalized. So... neither side comes out looking good? (question mark used intentionally)