Wednesday's Most Active Threads

Imagine that you were asked to draft the plot of a sensational story, one that would capture the world's attention. You would probably want your story to take place in a well-known location. New York City, for instance. You would obviously want an element of excitement. So, maybe throw in a car chase. But, to really get attention, you will need personalities guaranteed to attract publicity. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, perhaps? So, Harry and Meghan in a car chase through New York City? That would probably work. But, this isn't just a creative figment of someone's imagination, but something that actually happened. Or, did it? The most active thread on DCUM yesterday was titled, "Prince Harry and Meghan in Near Catastrophic Car Chase in NYC" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. The title of the thread initially referred to a "Catastrophic Car Crash" before I corrected it, putting what was always destined to be a dumpster fire of a thread off to a confusing start. The very first response was from a poster doubting the veracity of the story, setting the scene for near mortal combat over what had or had not occurred in the streets of New York. I really don't know what it is about this couple that provokes what I assume are perfectly normal people to go completely berserk and post compulsively as if their lives depended on it. But, in less than 24 hours, this thread reached 30 pages. If we could have harvested the energy generated by fingers frantically hitting keyboards yesterday, we could probably completely replace fossil fuels. Multiple posters were in double digits for numbers of posts. A few were over 30. One was 44 and another 48. I wish I could tell you what the thread said, but I have no interest in reading it. However, I am pretty sure that there is post after post by individuals complaining that the Sussexes seek too much attention, all the while giving them attention. Folks, the opposite of good publicity is not bad publicity. It's no publicity. If you don't like these people, ignore them. My only regret is that Harry and Meghan were not driving Mini Coopers. That would have allowed this whole thing to be turned into the next sequel of "The Italian Job".

The second most active thread yesterday was posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. Titled, "What are the best years to stay at home (SAHM)?", the original poster says that she has two toddlers and a third child on the way. Both parents work fulltime, but she would like to be a stay-at-home-mom for at least part of her kids' childhood. She would like advice from those who have been through it about which years are best to stay home. Seeing the length of this thread, I assumed that it had devolved to one of DCUM's favorite pasttimes, fighting between stay-at-home and work-out-of-the-house moms. Skimming the thread, I see that for the most part posters stuck to the topic and provided substantive and helpful answers. Though the thread did deteriorate eventually and I had to lock it. For better or worse, there is little agreement on an answer, so the original poster may be given a lot of food for thought, but still be left not knowing what to do. As many posters make clear, this is not a one size fits all topic. Therefore, what worked for others might not be best for the original poster. The argument for staying home during the infant years is based on the children being more enjoyable at those ages and the financial savings of avoiding a nanny or daycare. Posters in favor of staying home during early school years contend that kids need more support during those ages even if that involves nothing more than chauffeuring them back and forth to various activities. The same is more or less true for middle school years. Several posters placed a high value on being able to volunteer for school activities. There are a few disputes about the benefits of a nanny and disagreements about priorities. The most vitriol concerns the choice to stay at home while kids are in school. Some posters claim that those moms are sitting home doing nothing for several hours. Obviously, that suggestion doesn't go over well. There is a bit of traditional SAHM vs WOHM fighting over what stay-at-home-moms are contributing to the family fiances. But, that seems to get shutdown pretty quickly. These threads always attract work-out-of-the-house moms who claim that they can do it all and that staying at home offers no advantages. I always wonder why they think their input is welcome, The thread was obviously not directed at them, but they can't stop themselves from intruding to say that SAHMs are lazy. Luckily, in this thread at least, they seem to get treated like crazy relatives with the others kindly smiling and nodding while ignoring them otherwise.

Yesterday's third most active thread was titled, "Impressive sounding things about you that aren’t actually impressive". Posted in the "Off-Topic" forum, the original poster says that he performed three times at the Kennedy Center. This sounds impressive but he doesn't think it is because it was only for high school graduations. I have to say that I am not a fan of this sort of thread. Not only am I not personally interested, but such threads are difficult to summarize for blog posts. A bunch of people listed a bunch of things that you may or may not think are impressive. The whole point is that whatever is listed is not supposed to actually be impressive, leaving it unclear whether several posters didn't get the message or are ignoring it in order to post humblebrags. Several posters clearly didn't take the thread very seriously, with one claiming to be able to fold a fitted sheet. Everyone knows that's impossible. More than one poster claims to be a high achiever but lazy. So, while they have accomplished a lot, they think they could have done a lot more if they had worked harder. Some of the things listed are legitimately impressive and even spurred other posters to ask for more information.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. Titled, "Not Invited to Half Sibling's Wedding", the original poster says that her parents divorced when she was 3 and her dad received full custody of the original poster and her sister. He then remarried and had children with his new wife. He has since passed away. The original poster has always been and is still close to her stepmom. She recently learned that her half-brother is getting married but that she and her sister are not invited to the wedding. Several relatives and even neighbors are invited, so the original poster feels slighted and is hurt by being left out. I almost immediately noticed that the original poster had sock puppeted a response in this thread, posing as a third party and referring to the original poster in the third person. As such, I am not sure of the authenticity of this thread. A couple of posters in the thread alleged that the poster is a troll which is entirely possible. At any rate, I am not interested in expending more energy on the thread. The original poster may have given up on the thread in any case.