Sometimes people INITIATE a topic. Sometimes people RESPOND to what others have initiated.

Sometimes, I notice, people confuse the two. Singling out the one responding as if they have initiated or 'brought up' something and totally ignoring who actually did initiate the topic.


Do you think this is about an obsession with the speaker/responder and it is being projected onto the responder as THEIR obsession instead?

what happened to the natural 'flow' of conversations, ,where one speaks and the next speaks in REFERENCE to what they heard? is that unreasonable?

I see a topic and post or not. End of story./

sweet

Hummm I have seen those that respond and no matter what others say they have to find fault in their response..

What happen to we all have a opinion and can think like we want to instead of how some think others should think??..

At times it is best to just respond and move on for some will never see it any other way but their own...

I think people respond to what they feel is important to them.
Topics don't always stay on focus as intended.

Extended diversions from topic indicates a few things; The diversionary topic currently being discussed is not sufficiently addressed, The topic of diversionary discussion indirectly relates to the OP topic and the personal need of a respondent to be acknowledged. There may be more specific reasons but that's what I mostly see.

Its common for connections to enhance or broaden the spectrum of an intended topic. A phrase out of context for some may hold significance for others. Since we are all different, we see things uniquely. That unique take on things is what expands our understanding of others.

A person that is obsessed will expound on that obsession in all responses because they are obsessed about it. To them the OP topic has no bearing. The obsession comes to light across a multiple of topic platforms and often repeats itself in context and form.

There are a lot of people that feel they need to be acknowledged. Sometimes that need becomes overwhelming. You can acknowledge them and then return to the OP topic and in most cases that is enough but there are a few personalities the will try to demand full attention. Lack of acknowledgement initiates a trolling response.

Adopting netiquette assures on topic discussions as long as all respondents use it. When they don't, how that is handled often establishes the thread discussion.


Source: http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html

ty for a thoughtful contribution

One could simply differentiate reactions from knowing how to respond too..

msharmony,

I know what prompted this thread, and I was wondering the same thing.

I always figured if you don't like a topic, you should move on,,,or participate,, instead of being a participant that is belittling the participation of others,,lol

if that makes sense,,,I cannot tell you how many threads I avoid just because I do not really have much to contribute or because I know I cannot relate

man that is almost like a conversation

think most of time people will glance at opening statement long enough to type out their two cents worth and move on

I never know what will prompt me to post on a particular thread. Every topic is old hat for me. However, once in a while I believe I have an insight that might be helpful. Mostly, I seize an opportunity to be snarky. If I can make a relevant post and be snarky, so much the better.

I am going to assume you are referring to interaction via these dating site forums rather than everyday life, which would include anything from talking to a complete stranger, to heart to heart discussions about a highly personal and relevant-to-the-relationship situation with your mom.

I think people are first drawn to dating sites for a reason.
I think people are drawn to dating site forums for a similar reason.

You ever read where people say "I've met so many friends on the internet!" or "participate in the forums! Get to know people! Make friends!" or something like that?

When you do that you form a social group.

In every social group that has ever existed there is always conflict, there is always vying for dominance, always a continuing "norming" process most especially when there is turnover of members.


Can you have a discussion with a "friend" and turn that relationship off? Remove yourself, put yourself into a completely objective perspective, no longer seeing them as a "friend" at all, in any way whatsoever?

Relationships are relationships. Friend, enemy, lover, parent. Relationship, as it pertains here, is just another term for "group."


It's not about an obsession with the speaker/responder.
It's about group dynamics. Trying to normalize beliefs, rules, and hierarchy.
If there is strife and seeming obsession with a poster, especially if they delve into a personal nature, it is with establishing consistent rules and beliefs among all members of a group.



Conversations are what you have 1 on 1, preferably face to face, in "real time."
When you post something in 5 minutes off the top of your head, while the person responding to you takes 2 days, gone through google searches to look up responses, asked other people their opinions, and then come back to you...it's no longer a "conversation."


It's unreasonable to think you are having a conversation and not just putting out fodder for people to accept or attack however they see fit, in ways you don't like or agree with.


IMO key words there are "if you don't like."
That implies people "should" reply if they "do like" a topic.

Responding because of an emotional reaction of "like" has the same merit as responding due to an emotional reaction of "dislike."


See? Social posturing for group solidarity.
If you cannot tell, why even mention it?

^^^^ This
Especially if there's already 3+ pages of replies. I do not go through all of that, some write tomes. Including myself, but that's not the point, haha.
And sometimes it's a case of a response standing out, so you reply to that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that IS taking part of conversation. It doesn't have to be linear now does it? That would mean you could never ever react to something someone said on page 1 because there's already a page 6.
I think that's BS, especially on an international site where ppl have different times off to spend online and to react to stuff.
When you guys in the States have the evening off, I'm asleep. You can start something in the middle of my night, by the time I'm up there could be a page 5. Why shouldn't I be allowed to react to page 2?

I think its an obsession with the speaker

I have a theory about it.

I suspect that there are people who harbor resentment against sects of society, who do not conform to some ideology they hold dear.

The internet offers a platform to vent their frustration at individuals who embody the dogma that they are lobbying against, which might explain all the personal attacks that get launched online.

But I truly believe that one can challenge an opposing belief, without attacking the person voicing that belief.

And no. a natural flow of conversation involving referencing, is not unreasonable at all :)

If a person's response is as clear as mud, then others might take the response the wrong way.

Or they might not take it any way at all david, since your post was super vague

Maybe I am misunderstanding. When someone posts a topic in open forums, people reply. Sometimes there is a debate. With a debate, it ia a 2 way street. So how can someone classify posts as a response or obsession? I can assume to know what this is about (like David) but in debates, it goes both ways.