# disappearing English only threads



## jimreilly

All the English only threads started today between 4:06 PM and 6:08 PM seem to have disappeared.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Jim,

I just checked a few of todays threads, and found this one:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=196375

It was started about 4:30 PM today, EDST.  Can you give us any thread topics, so we can search for those that appear to be missing?

Thanks,
Cuchu


----------



## jimreilly

Hi Cuchuflete:

I posted one on slang words that had made it into English, and another on literary rule-breakers.

I came up with those times by looking in the English only Forum list and there no no posts between those times, which is  the period during which I posted those two threads (one of which, the slang one, had already had one answer before I signed off  at about 6:00 PM).

Thanks!

Jim Reilly


----------



## ILT

Hi Jim:

Those two threads were deleted because they merely asked for lists (of slang words one of them). We do not allow threads that turn into lists because lists do not leave space for discussion.

Maybe rephrasing your question in a way that will lead to an interesting discussion would be more appropriate.

Greetings


----------



## moodywop

I love translating said:
			
		

> Those two threads were deleted because they merely asked for lists (of slang words one of them). We do not allow threads that turn into lists because lists do not leave space for discussion.


 
Well, there have recently been a few threads at EO in which foreros were asked if they could remember or locate any idioms containing a specific word or reference (incidentally, I didn't mind those threads at all and contributed to some of them).

In one instance we were asked for idioms to do with death. Some posts were indeed lists:



> 1. over my dead body
> 2. to be dead to the world
> 3. I wouldn't be seen dead wearing that hat!
> 4. I wouldn't be seen dead in a place like that!
> 5. the affair is dead but it won't lie down
> 6. you do that and you're dead meat!
> 7. dead men tell no tales


 


> Dead against something
> Dead beat/dead tired/dead drunk/dead easy/dead end/dead loss
> Dead on time
> Dead loss
> Flogging a dead horse


 
but were not deleted.

Some interesting topics did however come up for discussion.

You can't know whether a thread is going to lead to a discussion if you nip it in the bud.

The deleted thread asked about the way words previously regarded as slang had then gone on on to become part of the standard language, often even losing any label (such as "colloquial"), which is what happened, for example, to "gimmick"(slang colloquial no label). It had to do with the history of the English language - a subject which I would have thought should be of interest to language lovers.


----------



## panjandrum

There is a difference between asking about idioms related to death and inviting a list of words that were once slang and are now accepted in English.
The first will be useful information for all of us.
The second will never end because it is in the nature of English over the centuries to absorb and accept "slang".


----------



## nycphotography

It strikes me as being much more productive to add a response with one of the explanations given above and then close the thread. That way, one is not left wondering what is broken, if it's broken, if they've been censored, or any other a dozen other questions.

In fact, to my sensibilities, deleting someone's posting without explanation is just plain rude.


----------



## jimreilly

panjandrum said:
			
		

> There is a difference between asking about idioms related to death and inviting a list of words that were once slang and are now accepted in English.
> The first will be useful information for all of us.
> The second will never end because *it is in the nature of English over the centuries to absorb and accept "slang"*.



The red highlights (is "highlights" still slang?) are mine, not panjandrum's, and he said it better than I could have; indeed, part of the point of the thread was to help foster an appreciation for just that aspect of the nature of English. Enough said!


----------



## elroy

nycphotography said:
			
		

> It strikes me as being much more productive to add a response with one of the explanations given above and then close the thread. That way, one is not left wondering what is broken, if it's broken, if they've been censored, or any other a dozen other questions.
> 
> In fact, to my sensibilities, deleting someone's posting without explanation is just plain rude.


 Please rest assured that this is never done intentionally. 99% of the time, when we delete threads, we either do so publicly and leave a notification or we remove the thread and any trace thereof from public view and PM the thread starter with a notification, an explanation, and an invitation to ask any questions.

But we are human. Sometimes, especially if it's a busy day, we may forget to send the PM. In those rare cases, if the thread starter is (rightfully) concerned about the whereabouts of his thread, he usually ends up opening a thread as Jim Reilly did here or contacting one of us by PM. As you can see, we are more than happy to share the reasons behind our decisions. It's just that sometimes we forget to act preemptively.


----------

