March

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Just for fun: like the full name but not the nickname, like the nickname but not the full name" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. Threads about names — normally asking for suggestions in the "Expectant and Postpartum Moms" forum — are very common. So, I guess it was just a matter of time until one made the most active list. The purpose of this thread is clear from it's title. One example provided by the original poster is liking Tamara but not Tammy. There are two types of responses that can be expected in name threads. One is posters inventing names that they believe are funny. Most often they are not. The other is posters getting offended, generally when their own name or a name they love is criticized. I haven't read all of this thread but several posts were reported so I know that offense was taken in at least a few cases. I am not sure if any made up names were posted but I certainly wouldn't be surprised. For the most part is appears that posters stayed on topic and stuck to the original poster's intention for the thread. Some posters posted their own names, which they love, and nicknames that they hate and hope that nobody uses. Others posted their children's names and nicknames they either liked or disliked. I wouldn't expect to learn anything new from this type of thread but actually found out for the first time that "Topher" is a nickname for "Christopher". Heretofore, I thought it was its own name and it did not occur to me that it is a nickname. Based on this thread, one would conclude that the name "Rebecca" is the name with the most associated nicknames, but nearly all of them are hated.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Spikes and hooks are the least 'equitable' things out there? Why are Ivies so into them?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. This thread is really another in a very long series of threads resulting from the trend among colleges and universities to make standardized tests optional for admissions applications. The original poster argues that "musical ability, theatre, and esoteric extracurricular and leadership accomplishment" are functions of privilege and, in fact, more inequitable than standardized tests. One of the criticisms of standardized tests is that they favor those privileged to have undergone intensive test preparation. The original poster turns this argument around and argues that factors that are highly regarded in holistic admissions policies such as musical or theatrical talent are developed through significant investment of parents' time and money which requires even more privilege. I've only read the first page of responses, but those posts show that some posters refute the original poster's argument and claim that their kids' talents were developed mostly through the children's own initiative with minimal parental support. The original poster is unrelenting in her insistance that only privileged children are capable of such accomplishments and that this exposes the hypocrisy of test optional admissions policies. Admittedly, I am not an expert in the topic, but based on my own observations, top athletes, musicians, or actors all have innate abilities. Yes, those talents must be developed for the individuals to reach top levels, but that does not always require the sort of investment the original poster imagines. Soccer and baseball, to name just two sports, are full of athletes from very humble origins. What privilege those individuals have is mostly a result of talent and hard work. Moreover, the original poster accepts as fact that dropping test requirements is purely motivated by "equity" concerns. I am not sure that argument is as well-founded as the original poster imagines. Similarly, the original poster implies that top athletes, musicians, and actors only pursue those activities in order to enhance college applications. In other words, in this poster's mind, there is no difference between a test preparation course and piano lessons. I think many would disagree with that assessment.

I'm sorry to say that the British Royal Family has again reared its head, or more accurately, its head has been reared, in yesterday's most active thread. Titled, "King Charles evicts Harry and Meghan from Frogmore" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum, the original poster offers little beyond the subject line and a hope that Meghan and Harry get reimbursed for renovations for which they paid. But, that was enough to launch this thread to the top of our charts. Obviously I am not going to read this thread and therefore have nothing to say about it. I was surprised to find just now that the thread is locked because I have no memory of locking it. If I have somehow developed the ability to lock Royal Family threads in my sleep, I will count it among my greatest achievements. For those of you with, shall we say, more refined tastes than me, you can still read 11 pages of what I am sure are scintillating posts.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "13yr old's pediatrician just told her she is overweight and I am pissed" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. The original poster says that during her daughter's well visit, the pediatrician talked to her about beng overweight based on her body mass index (BMI). The original poster, who provided her daughter's height, weight, and clothing sizes, is convinced her daughter is of normal weight and was very offended by the doctor's comments. I've mentioned before that weight, especially where girls and women are concerned, is a hot button issue on DCUM. Still the 23 pages of replies that this thread garnered in less than a day is extraordinary. There was no way that I was going to read that many pages this morning, so I just started searching for the original poster's posts, thinking that might give me an idea of how the discussion developed. Instead, I immediately discovered repeated sock puppeting by the original poster throughout the thread. Because of that, I've just locked it. I won't spend time discussing the thread because now I don't care about it. But, this is another example of why I think DCUM needs a fulltime psychologist on staff. Not only to provide help for the large number of posters who are clearly in mental distress, but to analyze this sort of behavior. Frequently the goal of sock puppets is simply to prolong a thread, sometimes fairly innocently because they think their thread is being ignored and they want to encourage legitimate replies, but other times as a form of trolling. In this case, I feel like the poster was not getting the support that she was seeking and couldn't stand being told she was wrong. Therefore, she came to her own defense. This was not a close call in regard to sock puppeting. The poster literally posted replies agreeing with her own previous posts. Even on the 22nd page, she was posting messages addressed to the original poster and arguing that the original poster was correct and everyone else was wrong. In all, the original poster posted at least 24 times in thread.