The Dink Network

I was wondering how people veiw this forum. I do it using the View All Forums button. How many of you do the same? Or am I alone in that respect? I also view it in Forum style. Who else does that? Or do you use Message Board style? I also set index to Flat. Am I the only one? Or do others do it? I set Message to Nested. Do you use Flat, Nested, or Single?

Style: Forum
Index: Flat
Message: Nested

I don't use "View All Forums", but a board index page which lists the different categories (General, Development, Off-topic, etc), and clicking on a category goes to a list of topics in that category.

Style: Forum
Index: Flat
Message: Flat

Message Board
Flat
Nested

forum
flat
flat

Forum
Flat
Nested

I don't use all forums. Instead, I use this.

Edit
Oh, and viewing the deleted entries clears up confusion sometimes.

Edit^2
I wonder... will we ever get the option to go view the latest posts added to a long(ish) thread? Or maybe the post right before the new post so people don't get irritated at having to scroll up a little each time? I understand that this would be difficult to impliment, (Which post should It link to, if I'm in yadda yadda view with multiple new's in multiple places) But it would be a cool option, and I definitely would enable it. Save some time searching for the one new reply in the center of 50 previously views posts.

Lastly, I think I've edited this post more than 8 times. Awesomeness.

Forum
Flat
Flat, though I sometimes use nested when I'm not sure to who somebody responded.

Forum
Flat
Flat

Message Board
Flat
Nested

Using anything else than Nested will lead to confusion, so I don't see why people do it.

They come from Forums, where "nested" is not an option, so they don't expect it to be too important here, either. The problem is, most of the dinkers have a message board (nested) past..

Anyway, I'm
Forum
Flat
Nested.

I view it with my eyes

Phew, I thought I was the only one.

Chrispy, maybe, but his über multiple-forum hack 'degraded' him into Message Board view.

To be honest, I've never seen 'nested' anywhere else...

Using nested will lead to confusion as well, because nested view isn't chronologicly. That's the main reason for me to view the forum flat.

You've never been to slashdot?

Erm... visited the front page and thought it was too chaotic.

So what? New posts are a different color than the old ones. It's better knowing who replies to whom than knowing in which order posts were posted. IMO.

OMG! I agreed with you a second time Phoenix! That can only mean one thing... the world is coming to an end!!

Nice bit of sarcasm there, Simeon.

Well... does that really count as sarcasm? Cause its the truth isn't it? He does view it with his eyes... it was facetious yes, even ironic... but sarcastic?

You can still say things that are true and still be sarcastic. Sarcatic does not equal/mean "not true"

sarcastic
A adjective
1 sarcastic
expressing or expressive of ridicule that wounds

I can't say I was expressing ridicule to wound

Sarcasm is per definition an ironic remark intended to hurt. No, really, look it up if you don't believe me.

So what? New posts are a different color than the old ones. It's better knowing who replies to whom than knowing in which order posts were posted. IMO.

I don't agree with you. New posts do have a different color, but not long enough. So by the time I read about 70% of the posts and have(possibly) replied to one or two the yellowish color disapears. And if you want to read through a thread that isn't new colors won't help you, but people can still say things that hint at something that has been said earlier. But if you view it nested it's said 'later'.

Maybe it's more important to know to who the reply is then the time, but most of the time this is made clear in the message itself. Just imagine person A saying: "Wow! purple flowers are my favorite!" And person B replying: "I don't like flowers" And person C says: "I prefer blue ones", in such a case it's pretty obvious. In most cases you can trace it back. In cases where you can't, switch to nested. (Which I do sometimes) (the fact that I quoted you doesn't quite back me, but I thought that it can always be made more clear )

Try using a browser that supports tabbed browsing, in case you aren't using one already. (I recommend Firefox) If you are already using such a browser, why not take advantage of it? I just go to the main page of the message board, open all posts with a *NEW* on them in different tabs (at this point, they all have their "new-color" intact) and from there, I can read them all in whatever speed I desire, not fearing that the color may wear off.

Additionally, many of the people who don't use nested have this bad habit of not replying to the post they are actually replying to, but instead they reply to the thread "generally", causing their reply to end up at the bottom of the post instead. It's rather annoying.

And the last point is that quoting is totally unecessary when using the nested view, since you can always tell who replies to whom unless they, like I mentioned earlier, just reply to the thread in general, thereby causing a disruption in the thread continuum.

That's a definition not an exclusive one.

"And the last point is that quoting is totally unecessary when using the nested view."

I'll still keep quoting, as for some large posts (not this one, mind you) it refreshes the memory so you don't have to search back thinking "where the heck did I(/he/she/you) write that?"

Though it's the only one dictionary.com gives. Okay, it has three:

sar·cas·tic
adj.
1) Expressing or marked by sarcasm.
2) Given to using sarcasm.

Though these two don't say much. Finally there's the one Simeon gave.

A look at sarcasm:

1) A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2) A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
3) The use of sarcasm.

Definition 3 still doesn't tell us much, but is for context purposes, nr 2 tells us that it has to do with "sarcastic language", for which I'll redirect you to "sarcastic".

So yeah, it's pretty much the definition for sarcasm/sarcastic.

sar·cas·tic
adj.
1) Expressing or marked by sarcasm.
2) Given to using sarcasm.
...
3) The use of sarcasm.

I hate when the definition of a word has the word in it. It's just stupid and silly, not to mention crazy.

Besides me and my mum be sarcastic with each other all the time and the intent is humour not to harm.

With your mum it mightn't be hurtful... but its close to one of the previously mentioned definitions... its for the purpose of ridiculing or mocking somebody... a more biting form of teasing, if you like. Very rarely is my sarcasm contemptuous... but mocking... yes.
Either way I don't think what Simeon said qualifies. Again, facetious or possibly ironic. Not sarcastic.
EDIT: Usually I wouldn't be quite so picky... but you did say you know a lot about language...

Wrong, sarcasm doesn't need to be irony. The intent to hurt is true.

For example, check this: "No I can't read your mind."

This isn't irony (because you actually say what you mean), though the explicit tone in which the word "can't" is pronounced makes it hurtful (for example in "How the heck should I know what you mean, stupid?").

Please, let's not weave that language thread also into this one. This "mock DD" thing of you is almost akin to trolling, which is a no-no here and everywhere else on the internet.
Discussions are fine, though. I'm not a mod, so you don't have to listen, but I felt this needed to be said. Okay, let's move on with my post.

Irony, sarcasm, cynicism and scepsis are almost always confused, even by advanced linguistics. The overlap between them is great, but none of them is fully contained in any of the others.

I'm pretty sure that Simeon's remark isn't even ironic, because it holds no contradiction. Facetious (append -ly and it's the only English word in which all vowels appear in their order in the alphabet) would indeed be a better word.

EDIT: I wrote "language thread", which was in fact a "what's your first D-Mod" thread. Go off-topic-ness! I think we've scared CastMan away...

The differences are somwhat subtle, but I believe what you and your mom exchange are repartees.

What me and my mum do are what is often refered to as "being a smart ass". I wouldn't call that repartees.

"This "mock DD" thing of you is almost akin to trolling, which is a no-no here and everywhere else on the internet."

Quoted for truth.
Guess I can't say I'm not guilty of it, but I don't hound him in every thread he posts in, as you (IceDomina) seem to do.

Guess I can't say I'm not guilty of it, but I don't hound him in every thread he posts in, as you (IceDomina) seem to do.

Well, unless I'm mistaken, IceDomina's sarcasm is intended to be friendly and should not be taken too seriously. She does/did that to other people too, you know.

Am I mistaken, dear Ice?

forum
flat
nested
... I think.

As per usual Ducklord m'dear, you get it. (Ah, somebody understands!)
And I wasn't 'weaving' anything in... I wasn't being sarcastic either actually... I was honestly just making the point that I wouldn't bother about the finer sides of definitions if DD didn't pride himself on knowing quite a bit about the subject. I thought he'd prefer to avoid any possible language errors...
As for it not being ironic... an ironic comment doesn't always have to contradict, it can just be saying the unexpected... in a thread about forum settings, mentioning the obvious is rather unexpected. It was preceded by a 'perhaps' to avoid the argument.
Nor did I ever say sarcasm had to be ironic. And as for sarcasm having a hurtful intent, I think its a matter of degree... it can 'bite' without being malicious.

I just want to throw this out, 'cause it appies in multiple places:

All humor can be taken as offensive to someone or something.
-->Therefore, in the *perfect society* there would be no humor. Enjoyable, eh?

No, no, no. In a perfect society, people wouldn't get offended.

*mumbles* dang oversensitive gxblmph...

I just love the perfect society.

How about... *dramatic tone here* The Pun?

Or isn't that considered humour? Or do words feel offended? Or... Or... way to much lines starting with "or" here...

Maybe people who are sensitive about the subject of the pun would get offended. I don't know. People can be far too sensitive about things... one of the reasons I'm glad I'm not one.

"People can be far too sensitive about things... one of the reasons I'm glad I'm not one."

You're not a person? I figured you were a bit inhuman, posting as frequently as you do.. yohoho

I post frequently now that I have broadband. But that's just because I have too much internet time on my hands now.

Posting frequently is an unfortunate side-effect of insomnia. Facilitated by reading too quickly.
And no... not human... I'd quite like to be a dangling participle though.