I think people are responding to their own threads

chani8

Mon, Jun 01 2015, 4:38 am

June wrote:

see this thread:

http://www.imamother.com/forum.....23235

apparently, OP found it very comforting.

Very entertaining!

ABC

Mon, Jun 01 2015, 5:17 am

ms5771 wrote:

I think Yael said there were something like 50 colors? Could I be wrong?

50 Shades Of Amother
LOL

myself

Mon, Jun 01 2015, 6:45 am

I agree with chani8.
Also, I think some things are better left unsaid. If that's what floats their boat...

JMM-uc

Mon, Jun 01 2015, 6:58 am

chani8 wrote:

Very entertaining!

ROFL!

It's nice to see that some people can self soothe/solve their own problems Smile

mfb

Mon, Jun 01 2015, 7:07 am

Sanguine wrote:

They always agree with themselves. They just do it to boost their opinion or to bump up their thread when their "important" thread is ignored (guess it's not so important embarrassed

)

I think you don't see the colors if you're on a phone which is why some people just don't get this color business

I see colors when logged in from a phone! Its people who are either new or not on as often and didn't hear about this feature. If you're not looking for it, I don't think you'd realize it.

To others that asked there are way more than 50 colors we tested it way back when it started. Also when the colors use up amother just doesn't have a color anymore. No doubles in a thread.

amother

Seashell

Mon, Jun 01 2015, 9:54 am

Liebs wrote:

LOL!! really funny...they don't realize!!

How didnt they realize that they have a color on their Amother post that would out them?

youngishbear

Mon, Jun 01 2015, 11:39 am

yenny wrote:

Can we stop this thread ? Why kill the entertainment? We should have kept quiet.

Give it three days. When this thread ends, people who haven't seen this will provide us with free entertainment again.

gp2.0

Mon, Jun 01 2015, 11:20 pm

I find it extremely creepy. Especially that thread where a poster wants to help her friend who had a breakdown and it turns out OP is having her own mini-breakdown.

boysrus

Mon, Jun 01 2015, 11:23 pm

gp2.0 wrote:

I find it extremely creepy. Especially that thread where a poster wants to help her friend who had a breakdown and it turns out OP is having her own mini-breakdown.

I agree. This is making me wonder how many other threads on imamother in the past have been a complete farce like this. Is anything real here? (apart from me of course!)

youngishbear

Mon, Jun 01 2015, 11:25 pm

gp2.0 wrote:

I find it extremely creepy. Especially that thread where a poster wants to help her friend who had a breakdown and it turns out OP is having her own mini-breakdown.

How did I miss that one?

gp2.0

Mon, Jun 01 2015, 11:32 pm

boysrus wrote:

I agree. This is making me wonder how many other threads on imamother in the past have been a complete farce like this. Is anything real here? (apart from me of course!)

Well that was what prompted the labels in the first place! Yael suspected this was happening. I'm just kind of freaked out that it happens this often. (Or is it the same one poster on different threads hmm.)

Youngishbear it's still around. I think it has the word devastated in the title.

mfb

Mon, Jun 01 2015, 11:44 pm

gp2.0 wrote:

Last edited by mfb on Tue, Jun 02 2015, 12:56 am; edited 1 time in total

mfb

Mon, Jun 01 2015, 11:44 pm

gp2.0 wrote:

Eta double post

Last edited by mfb on Tue, Jun 02 2015, 12:48 am; edited 1 time in total

seeker

Tue, Jun 02 2015, 12:24 am

I really don't think we need to point out the specific thread title here. Whatever led the op there to post as multiple identities was no joke and I don't see the purpose in leading more people there just to gawk at her naïveté or whatever it is you want to check out.

youngishbear

Tue, Jun 02 2015, 12:44 am

seeker wrote:

True. I agree there was no malicious (or even humorous) intent there. It probably shouldn't have been mentioned as an example at all.

mfb

Tue, Jun 02 2015, 12:57 am

youngishbear wrote:

True. I agree there was no malicious (or even humorous) intent there. It probably shouldn't have been mentioned as an example at all.

You're right. Thanks for thinking for me. I edited my posts

youngishbear

Tue, Jun 02 2015, 1:07 am

mfb wrote:

You're right. Thanks for thinking for me. I edited my posts

It was actually my curiosity that was inappropriate... I was intrigued by the description that was posted.

In any case, some posters used to be very vocal about this repetitive amothering issue in the past. Now that it's been solved I haven't heard their reactions to the change...