Tuesday's Most Active Threads

It was a little hard to determine which threads were yesterday's top threads because there was not much consistency between those with the highest number of views and those with the highest number of replies. So, I'll somewhat arbitrarily start with a thread that was first in number of views and fourth in number of replies. The thread was titled, "For Fun: How You Know You've Become a Washingtonian" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster lists ten things that demonstrate that you have become a Washingtonian. As the title says, the thread was meant to be fun and it was mostly taken in that spirit. The thread quickly transitioned to posters reminiscing about Washington, DC in "the old days" — a topic that is fairly common on DCUM. Some posters argued that the only true way to become a Washingtonian was to be born here while transplants from New York declared that they would never be anything other than New Yorkers. That reminds me that the original poster's list might have included "you learn to smile kindly and nod gently when New Yorkers tell you that everything is better in New York". At any rate, if you are interested in arguing "Riggs" vs "PNC", "People's" vs "CVS", or "National" vs "Reagan", you will enjoy this thread.

The thread that was second in number of views and third in number of replies was also posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. Titled, "What’s the legality on this at a grocery store?", the original poster describes being stopped by a store employee as she was leaving a grocery store in order to show a receipt demonstrating that she had paid for soda that was in the bottom of her cart. The original poster struggled to find the receipt, but eventually did. However, the original poster considered this entire experience to be humiliating and wanted to complain to the manager about it. After reading the original post, I felt certain that the original poster would be in for a very difficult time as posters ridiculed her. But, to my surprise, most of those who responded early in the thread actually defended her. Several posters said that they never stop when asked to do so in similar situations and some claimed that the store employee acted illegally. This provoked quite a bit of discussion of the law, with excerpts of the legal code of various states being posted. It wasn't page 5 of the thread that posters began responding with the type of scorn I had expected from the beginning. So, I guess that we can take some solace in the fact that the original poster, who is only just now recovering from the trama of the grocery store, did not suffer additional humiliation at the hands of DCUM posters.

A thread titled, "Can’t lose small breed for a kid" and posted in the "Pets" forum was second in number of replies yesterday and sixth in number of views. The original poster explains that her daughter really wants a dog and that she is gentle and respectful them. However, the family has twice adopted dogs that didn't bond with the daughter and had to be rehomed. The original poster asks for recommendations for a dog that wouldn't have the same problems as the others. As could be expected, many of those responding recommended against getting another dog. Others suggest that larger breeds, especially labs, be considered because they would be less likely to view the daughter as a rival. Someone recommended a cat — which the original poster already has — and the discussion got diverted to cats and cat-like dogs for a while. The original poster was subjected to considerable criticism, not only due to the two rehomings, but also because of the dogs' breeds (one of which she had no choice in). There were some arguments against getting a dog from a shelter or rescue, but the breeder-shelter debate that dominates so many of these threads didn't really materialize. There were lots of recommendations, but little agreement so I'm not sure if the original poster will find a satisfactory answer.

The last thread at which I'll look was actually first in number of replies yesterday, but only eighth in number of views. Titled, "Joint Christmas Card" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum, the original poster asks if would be weird to send out a joint Christmas card with her ex-spouse — with whom the original poster had an amicable divorce — and their kids. Initially almost all responders agreed that this would be weird and might be confused as indicating that the couple was getting back together. However, one poster who identified herself as a "NP" or "new poster" — i.e. not the original poster — said that she and her ex-husband send out a joint Christmas card and this is normal in cases of amicable divorces. This poster also started responding to posts directed to the original poster, so I believe there was some confusion as to whether or not she was the original poster. At any rate, this poster proved to be very combative and soon dominated the thread. The original poster made very few appearances subsequent to this poster's taking over the thread. I haven't read all of the posts carefully and probably missed a lot, but many issues were discussed such as differing perceptions of divorce between now and generations ago, the role of step parents, and the impact of divorce on children. Most of the thread seems to be the "NP" rehashing topics surrounding divorce that have been discussed repeatedly. By all appearances, that poster is determined to have the last word. And the second to last, and the third to last, and the fourth to last...