Kevin's Watch

You might be surprised how many people read General Discussion... In any case, surely such a matter as thread titles just deserve a "tch, how annoying" at worst?

By the way, dAN, it's "mussels"

birdandbear wrote:I don't see the problem. What does it take, 3 seconds to click on it and find out what it is? If you're not interested don't read it.

I agree with this notion the most. Misleading subject lines are annoying but the real choice is in the hands of the individual. The only difficulty I've had has been in finding a subject so disturbing that my view of the watch at large has been tainted. I'd prefer to know in advance what subject I might be viewing but I accept that it will not always be perfectly clear.

jehannum_2000 wrote:... complete.

Will people please stop doing this?

You are 100% absolutely undeniably correcto mundo. But you know what it is? I can tell you. It's quite easy actually.

Recipe for incomplete subject titles:

Begin with one utter follower (you know, the kind of person whose whole life is a cliche'. This person can't do anything different, never has an original thought the entire time they live on this world. They like movies because someone else does. They buy whatever shoes are popular. They think their cool, hip, or whatever the word for 'more interesting than you' is at the moment because they do what you do.)

Add a cup and a half of spinelessness (If you see something stupid that is catching on, like L337 speech for instance, and you do it, then you're stupid.)

Stir in a teaspoon of selfish conceit (But then again, if you made a topic worth reading you wouldn't have to cover it up would ya?)

Add a dash of stupid advertising tactics (Don't you hate it when some company talks about the great outdoors for about five straight minutes and then at the last second they say 'that's why you should buy a Chevy Suburban'? When you package your title incomplete or not accurate on purpose so that people will open the thread up, you are LYING!!!!!)

Blend for 30 minutes, stick in the oven for an hour at broil, then throw that burnt mess out in the garbage. No one would ever eat it anyway.

birdandbear wrote:I don't see the problem. What does it take, 3 seconds to click on it and find out what it is? If you're not interested don't read it.

As a broadband user, yeah, about three seconds. On dial-up you're looking at 20-30 seconds to see the topic and get back to the forum though.

Please God, won't somebody think of the dial-up users!?

You're right. I'm new to broadband, but it wasn't so long ago (2 months?)
that the fastest speed I sould get was 31.2k. How quickly we forget....

And how spoiled we beocme in the process.

Still though....I never minded when it did take a little longer to find out what a vaguely worded topic was about .....but then that's me.

Complete sentences hard for me. Have hard time thinking. Want to smash. Half sentences much better. Like half sentences. Smash puny metal man.

Seriously, if you waste 30 seconds to find out the topic - ok. But after that initial waste of time, you know what the topic is. It's big secret is revealed! You don't need to wonder what it's about the second, third, fourth... time you see it. If you do, your problem is otherwhere.

I have a dial up modem, but have never really been bothered by this...it must be one of those things that bugs some people but not others...