Am I the only one who finds this oddly phrased?

"the tears are running down my legs."

 Yes, and if you want to change chess.com, why not send a letter to erik?

Ozzie,

   wouldn't that be a wee bit redundant ?  (the suggested title you proposed above)  ?

when constructing a sentence, they used to teach kids that to use the word 'which' to refer back to the immediately preceeding noun, pronoun, place or thing, is redundantly duplicative.

    seems that is about as 'cumbersome' as for example:

Topics in which I have posted in.

or    Topics I contributed to

   actually, although some might object on some type of grounds, the title could easily and correctly be:

Topics I posted      < as the word "in" or "to" is both 'understood' and 'implied' and need not be stated.

If you get out of the car and say to the person with you: "Come"    the "with me" is understood, just as much as if you say   "get out"   instead of   "get out of the car". 

    That is part of the curious beauty of English - it can have 'understood' parts that need not be fully stated but are 'implied' by the speaker and/or 'understood' by the listener without actually having to utter or write the words.

my 2 cents.

Beast said: Laugh I nearly did - the tears are running down my legs.

is your penis crying.

 Yes that's the turn of phrase: "I laughed so hard that I p*ssed myself" or more metaphorically "the tears were running down my legs"

I LOLd

Actually, you LdOL.

That sounds like a measurement of cholesterol.

The current labels make explicit the distinction between Topics I Have Posted In and Topics I Have Started, whereas My Forum Activity is ambiguous.

rofl

Grammer, Schrammer.

Language is always changing. As long as two people know what the hell the other person is saying, why worry whether the English teacher is going to get upset? Same goes for table manners.

Are you serious? Okay, maybe this topic is a bit over the top but you can't really buy into the "language is changing" argument, can you? If it's changing, it's deteriorating due to laziness which, incidentally, is like table manners. People just don't want to be bothered. That's a poor excuse for anything to "change".

Perhaps communicating with grunts and groans is where we're headed as well as eating off the floor. What's the big deal, right? After all, as long as we know what we mean and our bellies are full, who cares? 

I care.

that's redundant :P

William Labov.  Study up.

Prescriptive grammarians are dangerous.  The living langauge argument is very obviously the one grounded in history and research.

Also, regarding the first post, we can view "to post in" as a phrasal verb.  In a phrasal verb, there are 2 parts: the verb and the particle.  If a particle ends the sentence or phrase, as in "topics I have posted in", then it is in fact the particle that ends the sentence and not a preposition.  Even if it is a preposition, who gives a &%$#!!!  In the end, clear communication is clear communication and prescriptive grammar is a mechanism to subjugate those who don't speak "standard" dialects.

Well, as Winston Churchill said:  "This is the sort of pedantry up with which I shall not put."  In other words, shut up with your classroom BS.

Please don't forget on-line regulations: Most sentences should end with at least one exclaimation mark!!

It's strange that some people seem proud of writing/speaking broken English. Shouldn't we all try to better ourselves?

Sure language changes but some expressions are simply wrong and illogical. For example: "There's far less humans than ants." This sort of error is common. It should be: "There are far fewer humans than ants." Less is for indeterminate quantities not countable units and the plural form should be used for two or more items. I understand why some people use shorthand, introduce new words etc. but the logical nature of language still has to be preserved. Similarly, in chess, one might make an objectively bad move to generate more complexity and winning chances or some other reason. This is understandable. However, if one moves the king through check, it destroys the foundation of the game. Extending language must be done within its rational limits and even then it's not always a good idea.

Anyway, I don't share Ozie's complaint since we are only dealing with sentence fragments.

BTW: I didn't even speak English for half my life. I spent a good part of my childhood in Europe.

Bishop Robert Lowth.  Harebrain who started the logic nonsense.  Ivory tower egghead who missed the social function of language.

If I love you, then I give you a rose.

I love you.

Therefore I give you a rose.

That's logic.  But it doesn't get you into bed.

The most illogical thing you can do is impose logic/rationalism on an alogical system like language.

You're babbling and pedantic.  Shut up.