Is the angry reaction necessary? PLEASE READ POST #1 FIRST

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe they should send out messages like they did for the informative reaction. Some people use the angry reaction as they should. As @JacinLarkwell said he uses it. Though I agree it should not be used often and that this forum had went quite negative.
 
Yep, even seeking out threads to simply be negative, oh, i mean share their opinions 🙄...i have a very long ignore list going!

I don't think there's much changing another adults bad habits.. just add them to your ignore list and find a pleasant group of duccle, silkie and bantam cochin regulars. 🤣
Im here for ya!
 
I just think it's... Well not sure how to say that but a lot of arguments start by just pushing that reaction. Why does it have to be here? Like that's just my oppinion but. Yeah...


Why can't people just have an oppinion without having to react? Most people on here just angry react and don’t say anything. It’s weird🤷‍♀️ You can't change people. I get that. But why can't we at least try to make this forum less nagative? I'm sorry if this sounds weird. But It does makes sense right?

-SP
Starting threads to complain is negative, isn't it?
 
Most people on here just angry react and don’t say anything.
Personally, I find those reactions confusing: does angry mean angry at the poster, or agree with the poster in being angry at someone else? (I have the same problem with the sad reaction.)

An example would be: poster says "I'm planning to shoot the fox that kills my chickens." Someone might be angry that the fox killed chickens, or angry because they think the poster should not shoot the fox.

And when someone has a sick chicken that dies, I'm never sure whether to "like" the post because I'm glad they did update, or put a sad face to show sympathy. I'm afraid the sad face might be taken as, "I did not want you to post this."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom