4

I didn't agree with the summary closure of Which is correct: “bored of”, “bored by”, “bored with”? at the time, but you only get one "reopen" vote, and mine has expired (or perhaps been defeated by a second closure after being reopened, I don't know).

Unlike Carlo, I don't have a killer answer waiting to post. All I can say is Googling bored of with by gives me one link to a brief entry by oxforddictionaries, followed by dozen of links which are either irrelevant, or suggest many other people are asking the same question.

I don't profess to understand of complements with psych-verbs, but it seems to me there's more to it than has thus far been recognised. When trying to figure out what it was getting at, I recalled the bored of question, so I searched for that hoping I might find some useful information there.

Obviously even if anyone had anything to contribute that might have interested me, they wouldn't be likely to post it against a closed question. To my mind, bored of is a live issue epitomising an ongoing linguistic development, and I think it sends the wrong message that ELU just has a closed question with a flippant top-rated/accepted answer saying All are correct!!...I'm bored to death!! ;)

Can I have my ball back, please?

2
  • -1 bored by the title. (Actually, +1 funny)
    – Andrew Grimm
    Jan 31, 2013 at 0:29
  • @Andrew: I thought a touch of humour might encourage more views and help to get the Q reopened, but with only 48 views after 5 days I'm obviously nowhere near Carlo's 159 views on a request made only one day earlier. Or coleopterist's 119 view on a reopen request only made yesterday. So it's a good job waiwai933 just nodded it through, or presumably I'd have been fighting a lost cause.
    – FumbleFingers
    Jan 31, 2013 at 0:39

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

Reopened—I can think of no general reference work which would answer the question, and I don't think any other close reason would be appropriate (maybe NARQ, but that would be a bit of a stretch for me).

3
  • 1
    Thanks. I forgot that mods can reopen without needing 4 more like-minded voters. Would it have been better for me to have just tried to collar a mod in chat, to avoid cluttering up meta with such requests? I quite like the fact of Carlo's reopen request (it's what prompted me to do the same), but I think his helps to air some issues that perhaps need to be kicked around. I don't suppose mine does or ever will benefit the site in that way.
    – FumbleFingers
    Jan 27, 2013 at 0:15
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers No, it's good that you asked here (where everybody is supposed to ask). This way all the users that come here will see the reasoning that reopened it. It's good it's in the open. :)
    – Alenanno
    Jan 28, 2013 at 11:06
  • @Alenanno: I hadn't thought of it that way. In general I assume I'll just vote to reopen; others with sufficient to cast a reopen vote will see that under "review", so if four more (or a mod) agree with me, it'll go through. But I can't do that on this one - presumably I voted to reopen back at the time, but there wasn't enough support for my position. As more users get the rep to cast such votes, I guess we'll get more and more of these "see-saw" situations, so pretty soon we'll need a "reopen" tag in meta.
    – FumbleFingers
    Jan 28, 2013 at 14:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .