Read the thread!

[Floatlikeafeather2]

AIBU to suggest there should be a law against people commenting on threads when they have not read beyond the OP? There is a very long thread currently running that is a prime example of this. It's a very divisive thread and, without exception, the people on one side are those who have not read the thread, and often even start off by saying "I have to admit I haven't read the whole thread but...." and their responses are mainly knee jerks, while the people on the other side have and their comments tend to be much more considered. If you can't be bothered to find out the facts, you're in no position to comment. You could, in fact, be doing harm.

well, we can all see who on this thread thinks their pearls of wisdom are so important and unique they can’t be bothered to RTFT or even to read all the OP’s posts before posting the same shit that’s been posted 100 times already, accessed via that simple click on “See all” in the OP.

Tedious dimwits, the lot of them. I’d be slapping a ban hammer down on them if they did it more than once.

You haven't read the posts on this thread either?

It would be helpful to read the OP's posts at least

I’ve said this before, but I don’t think the option to reply should come up unless someone has AT LEAST clicked through all the OP’s posts.

@SpringIsSpringing25 is not the OP.

'Read the whole thread'
'Qualified to comment '
'A law against it'

People need to chill, it's a thread on MN not life and death.

I didn't read the whole thread and so if someone else has already said this, there you go .

Personally, I love elephants 🐘 but my favourites are giraffes 🦒

Take the thread about the woman who’s male lodger kept going in her bedroom. A couple of days on, encouraged by MNers, she evicted him with the help of her nephew. Great, well done OP.

So the twits who are now posting on the thread telling her to get rid of him are just wasting their time & didn’t even have the sense to wonder if things might have moved on.

I rarely read the whole thread but I do read OP's posts.

I rarely comment on a thread that is more than 1 or 2 days old, or over so many posts - what new thing could there possibly be to say?

On https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5297745-to-not-use-proper-spellings-when-naming-your-child?page=1

a poster made a mistake, & I think about 27 people have corrected her so far because it’s clearly not occurred to any of them that it might already have been picked up in the previous 500-odd posts.

It’s become the joke of the thread & ‘Kacper is a Polish spelling’ is the new ‘Cancel the cheque.’

Who has time to read the full thread? Do you guys have nothing else you have to do? I mean, if it's just a few posts long, I'll read it all. But if it's pages of posts then I'll read all OPs posts and that's it.

All the information for "AIBU" needed to answer should be in the OPs posts. Preferably the first one, and honestly it's OPs fault if it isn't and they instead drip feed. Either way, no one has to read the full thread.

I haven’t had a chance to read the entire thread 🤣 but I think it’s unreasonable to suggest there should be a law against posting without reading the whole thread. ;)
I do agree posters should at least click on “see all” from OP’s posts to check if there’s been an update that changes things.
I guess if posters at least acknowledge they haven’t read 10 pages of replies all stating pretty much the same thing, at least they’re making everyone aware they can’t be held accountable for being repetitive. 😜

I think it’s unreasonable how serious Mumsnet has become most of the time - I check the page to unwind from a long day at work and it’s definitely not the best idea. So I should show myself the door.

I often just read the OP’s posts on long threads. It’s better than just replying to the first post. But you would still think that if you’re correcting a post that was 400 or 500 posts back that maybe someone - or several someones - would have already made the correction?

Anyway, the repetitive posters on that thread are funny.

Personally I think starting a thread and then not responding to any of the replies is far worse

If I come upon a thread which already has lots of comments I generally don’t find there’s any need for me to comment on it at all. It’s either interesting/important enough to at least read all the OPs posts or else better to just move on.

Nobody has to post on a thread. So if you haven’t got time, just don’t bother. Scroll on by.

I've already said this, and so have others. People are saying they don't have time to read the whole thread. In that case, why bother to reply at all? Who's going to read it? There is no point! 800 posts in, there's little chance anyone's going to say anything original.

I do wonder if some people think it’s compulsory to post on a thread they open. I can’t see any other reason why you’d post on a thread you can’t be arsed to read.

In quite a few cases the first seven words of your post cover it tbh.

I tend to read the OP, maybe scan posts by the OP if it’s long but there are so many threads where the drip feed is flat out ridiculous and makes no sense. If this suddenly absolutely vital and key information is true (which I often doubt) then it would go in the OP. You get posts along the lines of “DP won’t make me a drink, I’m so lonely and afraid”, which are clearly ridiculous and then suddenly 55 posts later the OP remembers DP actually has form for forcing them to be a drug mule, mass murdering parents from the school that refuse to buy crack from him and burnt the neighbours house down in a fit of rage after their child waved at him. It feels like that drip feed of information is pretty relevant so needs including. Or maybe the OP is trying to twist things when they don’t get an avalanche of sympathy, who knows which is true.