Monday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Siblings kids not invited to wedding" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster says that her sister is planing a "weekday, outdoor, daytime, destination wedding" for which children under 18 are not invited. The original poster apparently has two toddlers and one infant who will be 11 months old at the time of the wedding (though she didn't mention the infant in her initial post). Arranging childcare and the difficulties of being away from the infant child who she says she will still be nursing are daunting and she believes there may be an exception for siblings' children. Therefore, she asks how she might bring this up with her sister. Somehow, this thread managed to grow to 17 pages in a day. That activity has little to do with the original poster who only posted twice in addition to her original post. Rather, the first post contained enough red flags to create a frenzy all on its own. First, the description of "destination wedding" gave posters the idea that this involved an exotic island in the Caribbean or something along those lines. Then, it turned out that the "destination" is only a four hour drive away. The fact that the wedding is being held midweek, in the morning, and outdoors struck many as strange and invited significant commentary. Finally, the meaning of "no children" was debated with some arguing that this restriction does not apply to children under the age of one. But the biggest debates involved the original poster's statement that she would still be nursing one child. Before posters realized the child would be 11 months old, several thought that a breastfeeding mom would have a hard time being apart from the baby for the 3 1/2 hours the wedding and reception would take. Some posters argued that this could be resolved by pumping, provoking responses from moms who had difficulty pumping. I haven't read all of the thread, but I don't think a formula vs breastfeeding fight broke out. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it did. Things really took a turn when it was learned that the baby would be 11 months old at the time of the wedding. Many posters were adamant that the baby should be switching to solids by then and being apart for a few hours shouldn't be a problem. In her final post at the time of this writing, the original poster said that her in-laws would stay with the children and she and her husband would make a day trip of the wedding and reception. Despite this resolution, the thread continued for another five pages, so far, with all kinds of personal conflicts between different posters taking place.

The second most active thread yesterday was posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. Yesterday I discussed a thread about working from home and mentioned that the topic has been taking over the jobs forum. This thread, which is titled "Biden wants RTO", is another angle on that topic. The original poster refers to an Axios article that he says claims that President Joe Biden has instructed federal agencies to actively require in-person work. The original poster is specifically concerned about whether this will affect the US Securities and Exchange Commission which apparently has an agreement with its union to ony require returning to the office twice a pay period. This question about the SEC was answered in the third response of the thread. It seems that the schedules of supervisors can be changed but the rest of the union members won't be impacted. Nevertheless, the thread continued for another 17 pages. The thread is basically just another run of the mill discussion of working from home versus returning to the office with the same old arguments being repeated. Posters threaten to quit if they are forced to return to the office. Others say that they will be glad to see them go and offer assurances that they will be easily replaced. Some posters even look forward to seeing a few older employees retire rather than return to the office in hope that will open some coveted job positions. Biden's motivations are debated, with posters citing a number of reasons he might want federal employees to return to the office. The topic of federal employees is a perennial controversial issue by itself. Like so many other things these days, the topic has been highly politicized with right-leaning posters especially having a dim view of federal workers. Many posters are convinced that federal employees are lazy do-nothings. In addition, many posters are convinced that those who work from home are lazy do-nothings. So, a federal worker who works from home, in the minds of these posters, is a doubly lazy, doubly do-nothing. There is also an anti-District of Columbia theme in this thread with many posters believing that they are being forced back to the office for the benefit of DC residents and businesses.

The third most active thread was titled, "PSA: severe weather forecasted for Monday 8/7" and posted in the "Environment, Weather, and Green Living" forum. The original poster described weather warnings that predicted strongs storms that might include tornados, microbursts, and strong winds that could cause widespread power outages similar to the storm that recently hit the DC area. The original poster was somewhat prescient in also saying that she was superstitious in believing that if she posted about the storm, it wouldn't amount to much. The thread was started on Sunday and, therefore, predictions at that point were in the early stage. Nevertheless, many posters reported being very concerned about a repeat of the last storm. Yesterday, posters described the warnings being upgraded and concern increased. Many posters were worried about the Pink concert being held at the Nationals stadium and wondering whether that would be disrupted. As the day went on, predictions became more dire and the federal government even closed offices early so that employees could get home before the storm hit. Many posters hoped that this would jinx the storm. But, as the storm approached, reports from areas in its wake were not promising, with descriptions of significant damage in some areas . Then, after all the buildup, virtually nothing happened. Several posters asked whether the storm had passed, thinking it might not have arrived yet. The original poster responded to take credit for jinxing the storm, along with OPM. After that posts were a mix of people complaining about the overreaction and being thankful that our area was not seriously impacted by the storm. Several posters, fully benefitting from hindsight, questioned the precautions that had been taken. Some posters were frustrated that activities had been cancelled for, as it turned out, nothing. But others pointed to reports of damage in other parts of Maryland and Virginia and expressed gratitude that the storm was a dud for us.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. Titled, "Take off a week in school year to go to disney", the original poster says that she and her spouse want to take their two kids to Disney World but want to avoid the long lines. Therefore, they are considering pulling their kids out of school for a week at a time that might have shorter lines. Before reading a single response, I have already spotted a number of issues with this post that are sure to inspire heated responses. Moreover, Disney has always been a controversial topic — though one mostly contained to our travel forum — and is even more so since right-wingers have made it a political target. So, the 17 pages of this thread are not completely unexpected. At first, responses are broken down between those recommending the best dates to visit Disney and those commenting on missing school. According to those responding, the first week of December and the first week of May are the best times, though one poster also argues for the week of Veterans Day. Opinions are split about missing school. Several posters think missing days during elementary school is fine, but becomes less advisable after that. Other posters strongly disagree that it is acceptable to miss school for a visit to Disney World. Posters found any number of things with which to disagree in this thread. Choosing Disney over school was seen as disregarding the value of education. Choosing Disney itself was criticized by posters whose tastes differ. One poster listed a number of foreign countries to which her elementary school child had already travelled, considering such trips much more worthwhile than Disney. But, this provoked a response criticizing her for not being concerned about the environment. This is the first time I've heard Disney promoted as the environmentally-conscious choice. As expected, there is no agreement about the advisability of missing school with even teachers coming down on both sides of the debate.