going off on a tangent in threads much

October 10, 2001 3:41 PM

Is it me, or do posts in some threads just gets way, way, way off tangent?
posted by Rastafari to Etiquette/Policy at 3:41 PM (36 comments total)

Just you.

But I do like beef jerky by the way.
posted by Kafkaesque at 3:55 PM on October 10, 2001

personally, i think tool's last album is really, really, good.
posted by signal at 4:02 PM on October 10, 2001

I guess my fake HTML tags were deleted.
posted by geoff. at 4:06 PM on October 10, 2001

funny how fake HTML tags get deleted like that.

But let me tell you, there just hasn't been a good breakfast cereal since Smurf Berry Crunch.
posted by Kafkaesque at 4:15 PM on October 10, 2001

Hooooo boy! I guess I deserved this.
posted by Rastafari at 4:23 PM on October 10, 2001

If all the ducks in the world blew up, would we have to drink coffee?
posted by willnot at 5:00 PM on October 10, 2001

geoff.: Actually, your fake HTML tag is still there, exactly as you wrote it. Unfortunately, you used real angle brackets, so the web browser did exactly what it's supposed to do with fake tags: ignored it. If you want to make your fake tags look right, use HTML character entities to make the angle brackets: < and > appear as < and >.
posted by moss at 5:08 PM on October 10, 2001

Hmm...

hmmmmmm...

okay, it seems to have translated my HTML character entities. Weird. I assume it did the same to yours.

...

Weird.
posted by moss at 5:09 PM on October 10, 2001

How 'bout them Dodgers, eh?
posted by Steven Den Beste at 5:59 PM on October 10, 2001

My cat's breath smells like cat food.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:59 PM on October 10, 2001

Actually, you only need to use a character entity for the less-than sign: &lt;
posted by boaz at 6:15 PM on October 10, 2001

which is typed: &amp;lt;
You need to use a character entity for the ampersand as well if you want that to show up in the browser.
posted by boaz at 6:18 PM on October 10, 2001

tanget? What tangent?
posted by bjgeiger at 6:40 PM on October 10, 2001

Although it’s a good idea to use it for > too.

(By the way, check your character entities if you preview your post—they get ‘processed’ when you preview.)
posted by gleemax at 6:56 PM on October 10, 2001

(By the way, check your character entities if you preview your post—they get ‘processed’ when you preview.)

On my browser (IE 5.1/MacOSX), this only happens sometimes. I'm too lazy to figure out exactly what's going on, so I just double-check them everytime.

I just tried a couple and it only seems to happen when I do a less than sign (i.e. it changes &lt; to &amp;lt;); any other character entity comes through fine.
posted by boaz at 7:11 PM on October 10, 2001

I would post it to bugs, but this thread seems as good as any.
posted by boaz at 7:13 PM on October 10, 2001

I like kitties.
posted by briank at 7:26 PM on October 10, 2001

I swear I will never post another kitty after this.
posted by darukaru at 8:01 PM on October 10, 2001

But seriously, I doubt that thread hijacking can ever be prevented, short of heavy moderation or the (currently bad form) practice of emceeing your own thread and making sure it goes where you want it to go. Discussions evolve, like the thread about Selective Service which turned into a discussion about jury nullification, a few weeks back. And you're always going to run into those one or two cranks who have a topic-fixation and feel the need to relate everything to it.
posted by darukaru at 8:18 PM on October 10, 2001

And you're always going to run into those one or two cranks who have a topic-fixation and feel the need to relate everything to it.

That's all well and good, Daru, but what does that have to do with how awful the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is?
posted by snarkout at 8:27 PM on October 10, 2001

Reports of irony's death are exaggerated.
posted by john at 8:27 PM on October 10, 2001

ALL YOUR THREAD ARE BELONG... aw, fuckit.
posted by arco at 8:35 PM on October 10, 2001

but what does that have to do with how awful the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is?
Well, if we would just adopt a barter economy based on the exchange of frog eyeballs, this would eliminate the profit motive and thus make the DMCA irrelevant. (As an added bonus, it would cure cancer.)
posted by darukaru at 9:31 PM on October 10, 2001

combination to what?
posted by chrismc at 10:24 PM on October 10, 2001

darukaru: you misspelled "kthxbi"
posted by kindall at 10:31 PM on October 10, 2001

Is it me, or do posts in some threads just gets way, way, way off tangent?

Yes! Stay on tangent, everybody!
posted by rodii at 7:20 AM on October 11, 2001

kafkaesque: yr not serious about that smurf berry crunch crack are you? Harmony, the cereal for women, makes me ho-ho tingle.

and thus ends my first metatalk comment.
posted by danOstuporStar at 7:44 AM on October 11, 2001

Yes! Stay on tangent, everybody!

Set in stone and pass it on to Moses.

posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:59 AM on October 11, 2001

Did you mean makes MY ho-ho tingle?

Because if you did, you should probably stop ingesting that stuff.
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:13 AM on October 11, 2001

Entering the new century the industrialisation of Britain was in full flow. One of the first significant hair cults to emerge around the Empire period (1804-1820) was á la Titus, in the style of the Roman emperor Titus (fig 2). This short and even dishevelled fashion sometimes worn with a Grecian band greatly contrasted with predecessors. In France particularly, ladies had been wearing extremely elaborate and enormous powdered wigs (fig 1), an exuberance of the rich which helped to fuel the revolution. The fear of an similar uprising of the underclass’s provoked the introduction of new social and labour legislation; an attempt by the government to subdue any revolutionary intent of the poor in Britain. Prevailing fear and the desire of the middle classes not to display the corrupt aristocratic decadence of the French, had an effect on the styles of the day. Although it is widely believed that men’s dressing was most influenced; Davis (1992) writes "Not that women’s dress remained unaffected by these structural changes in European society-e.g., gowns became less opulent, coiffures less edificelike,". Wealthy ladies, in fear of losing their congenial way of life, abandoned their huge wigs in favour of less gaudy styles like á la Titus.

Just trying to stay on tangent.
posted by Karl at 10:41 AM on October 11, 2001

Stay on tangent, everybody!

this needs to be a tag line.

with Evil Bert.
posted by epersonae at 12:04 PM on October 11, 2001

Agreed. That's soooo perfect for Mefi...
posted by fooljay at 5:20 PM on October 11, 2001

Do I get residuals?
posted by rodii at 6:08 PM on October 11, 2001

Ok, jackoffs. Here you go:

tan·gent [tánjnt ] noun (plural tan·gents)

adjective

1. See tangential adj.2

2. away from the point: not relevant to the subject currently under consideration

3. touching at a single point: touching only at a single point

4. touching but not crossing: in contact, but not crossing or intersecting


[Late 16th century. From Latin tangent- , present participle stem of tangere "to touch." Originally "line touching a circle."]

tan·gen·cy noun
go off at or on a tangent to change quickly and suddenly to a different subject or line of thought

Any questions, ask rodii, or fooljay, or Karl, or MiguelCardoso. Got it!
posted by Rastafari at 8:04 PM on October 11, 2001

Or maybe a Tangent Plane.
posted by bjgeiger at 8:50 PM on October 11, 2001