New Post
Search
HelpRe: Notice: (m)
in reply to a message by queenv
Most of the time, when I make threads, I know what I like and I just want combo assistance. If someone can't help make combos because they just hate the name, they aren't contributing and there's not much point in them replying.
Like, if I said, "I like the name Sarah, please help me pick a combo. Sarah Elizabeth, Sarah Jane, or Sarah Marie?" and you just said "I hate Sarah", you haven't really helped because you didn't answer the question. Same thing here, he's asking "Does Jordan and Josephine sound like a sibset" and someone comes along and says "Jordan is awful", they haven't answered the question and haven't been helpful.
"than you will go to jail for kidnap."
top: Helena
bottom: Silence
http://www.behindthename.com/pnl/59411
Like, if I said, "I like the name Sarah, please help me pick a combo. Sarah Elizabeth, Sarah Jane, or Sarah Marie?" and you just said "I hate Sarah", you haven't really helped because you didn't answer the question. Same thing here, he's asking "Does Jordan and Josephine sound like a sibset" and someone comes along and says "Jordan is awful", they haven't answered the question and haven't been helpful.
top: Helena
bottom: Silence
http://www.behindthename.com/pnl/59411
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
Right, but he could have addressed that by saying, as I said in my reply to him, "I'm not talking about the names themselves, I mean the alliteration" or "Regardless of whether or not you like each name, how do you feel about the alliteration"? There was no need to dictate who should or should not respond, or to say, "I don't want your input." I think most here would understand that he wanted them to only address that question. Unhelpful responses may still occur here and there, but I don't see the big deal as it's not like each post is limited to a certain number of responses. I'd rather see unhelpful responses, even to my own posts, than for anyone to feel intimidated by such language.
Besides, there was a flaw in the logic. If he thinks that a dislike of Jordan will lead to "bias", meaning, I assume, that it would lead to thinking that the alliteration is undesirable, whereas otherwise it might be seen as desirable, why wouldn't a liking of Jordan lead to thinking that the alliteration is desirable, whereas otherwise it would be seen as undesirable?
Anyway, it's gone now, which I appreciate him doing.
Besides, there was a flaw in the logic. If he thinks that a dislike of Jordan will lead to "bias", meaning, I assume, that it would lead to thinking that the alliteration is undesirable, whereas otherwise it might be seen as desirable, why wouldn't a liking of Jordan lead to thinking that the alliteration is desirable, whereas otherwise it would be seen as undesirable?
Anyway, it's gone now, which I appreciate him doing.
1