Tuesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was a bit of a surprise. Titled, "ECNL forcing Brave & Union Partnership" and posted in the "Soccer" forum, this is the second thread from the soccer forum to be among the most active threads this month. Like the earlier one, this thread consists mostly of rumors and discussion of rumors. The thread was started nearly a week ago with a post simply saying, "Fall 2024 - ECNL is forcing Brave to partner/merge with Union. Confirmed." As I said when I discussed the soccer thread last week, I have no idea what any of this means. I think that ECNL is some sort of administrative body or league within which various clubs compete. Brave and Union, I deduce, are clubs that have both boys and girls teams of various ages. The thread added roughly 9 pages of new posts yesterday which accounts for its being the most active thread of the day. A couple of caveats: this is a 28 page thread and I have read very little of it. I have no idea whether the original rumor is true, but one of the latest posts in the thread says that a formal announcement will be made today. So, I guess we will see. The only other thing that I will say is that this thread is a perfect illustration of how you ruin a website such as DCUM. Because the original post was completely based on a rumor with nothing to support its validity, many posters did not believe it. The original poster's use of the word "Confirmed" became an object of mockery with posters posting outlandish rumors followed by saying "confirmed". Basically the thread consists of little more than pages of nonsense and I don't know why anyone would waste their time reading it. Some time ago, the soccer forum became so unruly that I changed it to require registration in order to post. This led to months of posters repeatedly requesting that I remove that requirement, which I eventually did. But, this thread suggests that posters in the forum still do not have the ability to behave responsibly. The forum participants are also terrible about policing themselves. Just about the only ones to ever report posts in the forum are coaches who have been bashed and want the negative posts about them removed. The regular posters seem to be quite happy with endless drivel. As a result, not only was this thread the most active yesterday, but it was probably also the most useless. Confirmed.

The next most active thread was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Titled, "We did the work to repair the relationship after DH's affair, everything is great, and now I want out.", the original poster says that two years ago her husband had an affair. Since then, they have done therapy and her husband has become everything that the original poster could hope for him to be. He has become basically the perfect father and husband. Nevertheless, the original poster wants to leave him. Essentially, her connection to her husband has been lost and she can't reestablish it. Veteran readers of the relationship forum will know that "divorce" is the normal response to every situation. Therefore, not unexpectedly, the original poster receives plenty of support for divorcing her husband. A few posters argue that the original poster should stay in the marriage for the children, even if her relationship with her husband remains distant. Other posters point out that she has spent two years turning her husband into the perfect man and, if she leaves him, another woman will likely benefit from that investment. The original poster, on the other hand, will likely be left with nothing but cheaters who remain unrepentant and haven't gone through the same growth as her husband. Posters with this concern strongly favor the original poster remaining with her flawed husband rather than risk ending up with choices of men who are even more dysfunctional. There seems to be widespread agreement among posters that the original poster's feelings are entirely valid. The division is between those who believe those feelings are essentially here to stay and those who think that the original poster is likely to change how she feels about her husband. The first group argues that the original poster must either leave or reconcile herself to the status quo. The second group argues that more time is required to completely get over the affair and, in time, the original poster will no longer be repulsed by her husband. There were success stories from posters who had been in the same situation and made opposite choices. So, based on those examples, either choice could work out. One thing I can say about this thread is that it was incredibly substantive. Posters were overwhelmingly caring and supportive. As a result, this is probably one of the better threads I've read in this forum for quite some time.

Next was a thread titled, "Men 45+ on OLD: are they all broke?" and, like the previous thread, posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that in her experience with online dating, all the men she has met have financial problems. These may be because the men earn relatively little, are broke after divorce, or have significant financial liabilities. She says that she has met several men who are good-looking and who she likes, but won't get involved with them because they are not sufficiently financially secure. Unlike the original poster of the previous thread, this one did not find much support at all. I am reminded of the expression sometimes used in manufacturing that goes, "you can have it fast, cheap, or good, pick two." In this case, the original poster can find a guy who is good-looking, rich, or available but can only pick two. As posters in the thread point out, the wealthy, good-looking men are either already spoken for or not interested in commitment. Moreover, they probably don't need to rely on online dating to find partners. Multiple male posters join the thread to argue that they are indeed good-looking and, if not exactly wealthy, at least financially secure. But, they have no interest in seeing their money going to women, especially those similar to the original poster. Therefore, they are not only not available, but based on their posts, not particularly likable. The men in this thread tend to see women as mostly after their wallets and threats to their finances, a view unintentionally reinforced by the original poster. Several of the female posters do agree with the importance of financial security, but even many of the women in the thread reject the notion of marrying a guy for his money. Several of the women, in contrast to the original poster, wouldn't hold a man's lack of money against him if he was great in all other respects. As I said while discussing another recent thread dealing with online dating, I am always struck by the number of posters who describe themselves as experts in the field and report having great success. Yet, despite all their self-proclaimed success, they are still single. So, unless they are constantly turning down marriage proposals, their example is not of much help to the original poster.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Schools and Education General Discussion" forum and titled, "Is 7 ‘too old’ for first grade?". The original poster explains that her family has moved multiple times and combined with covid closures, her six-year-old son has only been home schooled so far. The child is being considered for a private school, but the school has recommended that he start at 1st grade rather than 2nd as the original poster had been expecting. The original poster says that her son will turn 7 before the school year begins and she wonders if this is too old for 1st grade. Those responding are of two minds. One group agrees with the school. Posters point out that most kids will turn 7 during 1st grade anyway. Therefore, her son will not be much older than other students. Other posters are opposed to starting with 1st grade, arguing that the boy will adjust quickly to 2nd grade. This discussion gets caught up in the perennial debate about redshirting and holding kids back a grade. Posters have surprisingly strong feelings about this practice. In my experience, most of the opposition seems based on the fear that a redshirted kid will have advantages over other kids and many posters resent that alleged advantage. Pro-redshirting posters believe that holding a kid back places him in the most appropriate grade and allows him the best chance of success. One added complication for the original poster is that the school will probably not accept her child as a second grader but will for 1st grade. So, the bottom line is that the child will only be a month or two older than some other children and, therefore, is not too old for 1st grade. Moreover, 1st grade is likely the only choice that will allow the child to attend the school in question. Given that most of the redshirting opponents are more concerned with the impact on their own kids, their arguments should be of little concern to the original poster who needs to consider what is best for her child, not the children of a bunch of anonymous posters who probably have nothing to do with the school she is considering. One other argument against starting in 1st grade was that this was an attempt by the school to force the original poster to pay for an additional year and, hence, a cash grab rather than an attempt to address the child's best interests. I have no insight into the validity of that concern, but at least it is an issue that does impact the original poster.