Re: derailin' a thread...how be this defined?

Originally Posted by
MattInFla
To me, it depends on the degree of divergence and the apparent intent. For example:
Thread topic: Obama had done A
Poster 1: A is bad.
Poster 2: A is good.
Poster 3: Bush did X (where X has nothing to do with A)
Poster 4: I kind of support A, but wish he had done B
Poster 5: A was a mistake, and his reasons are wrong.
Poster 6: A was a very good idea, and will make things better. B would not have worked.
Poster 3: Fox news sucks!
Poster 4: B was the better option because <yadda yadda yadda>
In this example, poster 3 is attempting to derail the thread, introducing irrelevant points in an attempt to shift the topic away from Obama's implementation of A.
Matt
That's a flawed example Matt.
Poster 3 consistantly says "Faux news sucks" not "Fox news sucks".
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. -- Rummy
Wise words from a wise man.
Bookmarks