Tangents not Threadjacks

[Lloyd_Cole]

This is my premise - that much of the interesting and illuminating dialogue at this site has come in tangents to the main thread topic of discussion.

If this is the case, should the authors of threads continually attempt to keep the argument where they intended it? Should the person who opens the discussion be the sheriff of that discussion?

[David_Elvins]

Yes and no.  

[TEPaul]

"If this is the case, should the authors of threads continually attempt to keep the argument where they intended it? Should the person who opens the discussion be the sheriff of that discussion?"

Lloyd:

If they don't like the tangents perhaps they should but I don't think they should be a sheriff of their thread if it's pretty apparent others would like to discuss tangents. I don't have a problem with a thread poster who ask others to start their own thread on tangents though. That can make the volume of threads on here a little unwieldy and hard to follow but, hey, most of us are pretty good at finding threads.

On the other hand, everyone who knows much of anything about this site and the posters on it knows Pat Mucci basically just likes to hear himself talk, and he's frightenly didactic which never makes for very dynamic threads when it comes to the responses and opinions of others.  

[Dan_Callahan]

Speaking of interesting dialogue, it's been fascinating to see the analysis of how the Chargers stack up against the Patriots. With the unknown of whether Rivers will play, it sets the stage for a stupendous upset.

[John Moore II]

I think tangents can be very good discussion topics, as long as they are not too far off of the original topic.

[Bob_Huntley]

I agree.

Someone started an interesting thread on an obscure golf course that eventually had a multi-thousand view count relating to Notre Dame and college golf.

I know that several friends of mine count the school as their Alma Mater but enough is enough.

Bob