Page 2 of 6
Posted: October 23, 2005 1:58 pm
by mings
Brown Eyed Girl wrote:mings wrote:
When you go out to a bar, and you and some friends are talking, do you get p/o'd that the conversation natuarally changes directions? I think not.
Jodi, I need some popcorn for my football game.
Mings, I think you may be onto something. My friends and I call these episodes tangents or derailments...and they happen constantly in our conversations. We get sidetracked, start talking about something else and eventually get back on track. Well, sometimes we completely forget what the point of the conversation was, which is when it derails.
I do think this happens a lot here at BN. Not all hijackings are deliberate...they are just following the course of typical conversations.
Of course some hijackings are designed to diffuse, some are to p*ss folks off, and pretty much all the other choices. So my choice would have to be... "All of the above", which I notice is not a choice.
Hey BEG. Yup. I think we're on the same page. If you (or anybody) were to hang out with my and my friends on any given night, you'd see we never stay on topic. Maybe we all have ADD or maybe we just like saying whatever we think of, becuase we have no reason to hold anything back.
Whenever I post a random off-topic comment, I don't do it to deliberately derail. I do it out of silly, harmless comments. This may be different for other people, but I like fun, and I like to share it with others.
Posted: October 23, 2005 1:58 pm
by mings
Prthd119 wrote:mings wrote:Jodibug wrote:pink underwear!
oops, wrong thread
Is there ever a "wrong thread" when underwear is discussed?
We're not back on Victoria's Secrets again, are we??
We can be...
Posted: October 23, 2005 2:03 pm
by Phins1026
Anyone else getting the "train" links at the bottom of the page??
Don't tell me that's where this is headed.
BEG I guess I should leave the polls to the pros. Can't believe I left out "All of the above" and " To promote popcorn sales for Jodi"
Posted: October 23, 2005 2:04 pm
by RinglingRingling
phjrsaunt wrote:I think I'd best plead "The 5th" on this one
You're not wearing pink unmentionables for this thread Auntie?
Posted: October 23, 2005 2:05 pm
by mings
Phins1026 wrote:Anyone else getting the "train" links at the bottom of the page??
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Posted: October 23, 2005 2:05 pm
by mings
RinglingRingling wrote:phjrsaunt wrote:I think I'd best plead "The 5th" on this one
You're not wearing pink
mentionables for this thread Auntie?
Fixed it for ya. I think everything here at BN is fair game.
Posted: October 23, 2005 2:06 pm
by Prthd119
mings wrote:Phins1026 wrote:Anyone else getting the "train" links at the bottom of the page??
I have no idea what you're talking about.
I am....
LMAO! It's a derailment...
Posted: October 23, 2005 2:08 pm
by RinglingRingling
mings wrote:Prthd119 wrote:mings wrote:Jodibug wrote:pink underwear!
oops, wrong thread
Is there ever a "wrong thread" when underwear is discussed?
We're not back on Victoria's Secrets again, are we??
We can be...
this isn't so bad either:
http://www.aubade.com
in case you want to get away from the domestic unmentionables.
Posted: October 23, 2005 2:10 pm
by mings
RinglingRingling wrote:mings wrote:Prthd119 wrote:mings wrote:Jodibug wrote:pink underwear!
oops, wrong thread
Is there ever a "wrong thread" when underwear is discussed?
We're not back on Victoria's Secrets again, are we??
We can be...
this isn't so bad either:
http://www.aubade.com
in case you want to get away from the domestic unmentionables.
Wait. We can't go this direction. I can't see it. I have no idea what you're talking about. Ahhhhh. I'm lost. Lost! Did anyone see Lost last week?
Posted: October 23, 2005 2:17 pm
by tikitatas
It's kind of a phenomenon called "rapport" talk and its been studied carefully by Deborah Tannen, a linguistics professor at Georgetown. It strikes me that her theories are as applicable on webboards as in person.
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/s ... 0195221818
Posted: October 23, 2005 2:20 pm
by mings
tikitatas wrote:It's kind of a phenomenon called "rapport" talk and its been studied carefully by Deborah Tannen, a linguistics professor at Georgetown. It strikes me that her theories are as applicable on webboards as in person.
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/s ... 0195221818
I get to learn something today. Without BN I think I'd be dumb. Did I tell you that I learned what paucity meant this week.
Posted: October 23, 2005 2:22 pm
by ragtopW
some times I am pizzed @ the thread starter or someone who posted and post a silly
Other times it is just the direction my little brain is going...
what about Pink Popcorn???
Posted: October 23, 2005 2:23 pm
by tikitatas
mings wrote:tikitatas wrote:It's kind of a phenomenon called "rapport" talk and its been studied carefully by Deborah Tannen, a linguistics professor at Georgetown. It strikes me that her theories are as applicable on webboards as in person.
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/s ... 0195221818
I get to learn something today. Without BN I think I'd be dumb. Did I tell you that I learned what paucity meant this week.
In what cnntext was it being used?
Posted: October 23, 2005 2:23 pm
by tikitatas
ragtopW wrote:some times I am pizzed @ the thread starter or someone who posted and post a silly
Other times it is just the direction my little brain is going...
what about Pink Popcorn???
Do they serve that at the Church of Wayne??
Posted: October 23, 2005 2:24 pm
by mings
tikitatas wrote:mings wrote:tikitatas wrote:It's kind of a phenomenon called "rapport" talk and its been studied carefully by Deborah Tannen, a linguistics professor at Georgetown. It strikes me that her theories are as applicable on webboards as in person.
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/s ... 0195221818
I get to learn something today. Without BN I think I'd be dumb. Did I tell you that I learned what paucity meant this week.
In what cnntext was it being used?
Uh oh. I don't remember. It was in a thread sometime around Monday. That and CG telling me what it means, is all I remember.
Posted: October 23, 2005 2:25 pm
by Prthd119
mings wrote:tikitatas wrote:mings wrote:tikitatas wrote:It's kind of a phenomenon called "rapport" talk and its been studied carefully by Deborah Tannen, a linguistics professor at Georgetown. It strikes me that her theories are as applicable on webboards as in person.
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/s ... 0195221818
I get to learn something today. Without BN I think I'd be dumb. Did I tell you that I learned what paucity meant this week.
In what cnntext was it being used?
Uh oh. I don't remember. It was in a thread sometime around Monday. That and CG telling me what it means, is all I remember.
It was R2...
Posted: October 23, 2005 2:29 pm
by mings
Prthd119 wrote:mings wrote:tikitatas wrote:mings wrote:tikitatas wrote:It's kind of a phenomenon called "rapport" talk and its been studied carefully by Deborah Tannen, a linguistics professor at Georgetown. It strikes me that her theories are as applicable on webboards as in person.
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/s ... 0195221818
I get to learn something today. Without BN I think I'd be dumb. Did I tell you that I learned what paucity meant this week.
In what cnntext was it being used?
Uh oh. I don't remember. It was in a thread sometime around Monday. That and CG telling me what it means, is all I remember.
It was R2...
That's right, both CG and R2 told me what it meant.
Posted: October 23, 2005 2:29 pm
by RinglingRingling
mings wrote:RinglingRingling wrote:mings wrote:Prthd119 wrote:mings wrote:Jodibug wrote:pink underwear!
oops, wrong thread
Is there ever a "wrong thread" when underwear is discussed?
We're not back on Victoria's Secrets again, are we??
We can be...
this isn't so bad either:
http://www.aubade.com
in case you want to get away from the domestic unmentionables.
Wait. We can't go this direction. I can't see it. I have no idea what you're talking about. Ahhhhh. I'm lost. Lost! Did anyone see Lost last week?
try this one:
http://greatexpectation.biz/aubade.htm
Posted: October 23, 2005 2:31 pm
by mings
RinglingRingling wrote:mings wrote:RinglingRingling wrote:mings wrote:Prthd119 wrote:mings wrote:
Is there ever a "wrong thread" when underwear is discussed?
We're not back on Victoria's Secrets again, are we??
We can be...
this isn't so bad either:
http://www.aubade.com
in case you want to get away from the domestic unmentionables.
Wait. We can't go this direction. I can't see it. I have no idea what you're talking about. Ahhhhh. I'm lost. Lost! Did anyone see Lost last week?
try this one:
http://greatexpectation.biz/aubade.htm
Okay. I'm back on board. I think I like where this is going. Fortunately, I don't talk French, but I don't think that matters here.
Posted: October 23, 2005 2:34 pm
by tikitatas
I speak French, but it's not a prerequisite for looking at that lovely lingerie!