Originally posted by flashtrum
The "Too busy to actually read, but not to busy to comment on what I haven't read" :
"Hmm. Looks interesting. I'll take a look at this later over a beer and post my thoughts on this".
Are you kidding me? Thank you, oh great one, for telling the world that the post "looks" interesting, but now we are at the mercy of your
beer-drinking schedule to get your TRUE take on the subject matter at hand.
edit on 8-10-2012 by flashtrum because: (no reason
Haha, yeah that does happen... I sometimes post like that. I generally do that when I see a comment within the first several posts of a thread and I
want to comment, but the thread is 100+ posts long.
I work a lot, so I never know when I will be able to sit down and spend a while reading a thread. When I do finally find the time to sit down and
visit ATS, I have forgotten what my original thought for the reply was.
However, I do not post without having at-least read the thread opening post or the entire responses I reply to. I won't say, 'I'll take a harder
look at it later and give my opinion'. If I can't read the opening post in it's entirety, I won't make a pointless acknowledgement of my intention
to read the thread and give my opinion later on.
My 'too busy' excuse is usually used to inform any members involved in a debate at a later stage of the thread and that my post is a reply to a
comment earlier in the thread.
One thing I have seen pointed out on a regular basis are the replies posted to inform the member their thread is useless because it has already been
It adds nothing to the thread, other than telling the author they have no right opening a new thread - which may be true, but should be addressed by
moderators instead of membership peers.
I have never understood why anyone, who finds a thread redundant and useless, would post anything at all in the thread. No need to point out the
duplicate thread, that is for the Site/Forum Staff to take care of.
If someone is really concerned about the thread being a duplicate, why do they post it in the thread, instead of alerting the site staff? There is no
need for a reply that points out the duplicity, when it is just as easy to alert the staff and refrain from in-thread alerts to the author by a
I sometimes get the impression those comments are not only made in attempt to alert the author of duplication, but to embarrass them to a degree and
some-how make them feel inferior or lacking enough skill or common-sense to be part of the ATS family membership.