"Nerf stuff I lose to" -> "Nerf stuff to which I lose." To tell it straight, there are plenty of reasons to use a dangling preposition over a more canonically appropriate grammatical form, and you could make a damn good case for doing so here. Not even gonna say you're technically wrong -- in a descriptive sense, there is indeed a dangling preposition in the title, that's all. <3
How about "nerf stuff that I lose to?". That is my easy escape when in doubt. Also, this thread was written intentionally poor stylistically, but thanks for the heads up.
I gotcha burn, I think this is a lovely thread, and the title is part of the charm. "To" dangles because it has nothing after it. "To" can be part of an infinitive -- "to run," "to write" -- or it can function as a preposition to indicate direction. In this case, "to" refers to "stuff" because "I lose to (->) stuff." To make it not dangle, the formal fix is placing a proper object after "to," most likely "which." "Which" refers back to "stuff," so saying "Nerf the stuff to which I lose" gives the "to" the intended succeeding object. I probably used some grammatical terms improperly, or explained that poorly, so if someone with more linguistic acumen could help out, I'd appreciate it. Edit: Like I said above, I think it works well enough here, because it refocuses the emphasis on the stuff you want to nerf -- the emphatic end pulls the reader back into that particular word.
