Are You A Post Whore?

[maryportfuncity 10,646]

Aye, sorry....recognised Thatcher mind, and spelled her name right as well.

[BrunoBrimley 86]

Did you now? Is this where I am supposed to say for shame?

[in eternum+ 22]

Whilst perusing my vital stats just now, I discovered that after months and months and months of posting 2.4 posts per day, my average has dropped to 2.2.

 

Gutted!

[TLC 9]

Right, apologies for failing to appear on page 10 of this thread, I can't let the same happen on page 11!

 

My post per day is now at a steady journeyman-like 1.6, although I again whoreishly draw your attention to my fairer, more accurate way of working out post rates. I joined in November '05 but due to my overwhelming fear of posting complete rubbish on the site (long since conquered) I carefully waited until Feb 6th before making my virgin post, and by God what a post it was....it took two more weeks to sum up the courage to post again!

 

So, using the recently approved 'TLC post weighting index' I have actually made 2.2 posts per day since my first post. Thank you.

[BrunoBrimley 86]

Whilst perusing my vital stats just now, I discovered that after months and months and months of posting 2.4 posts per day, my average has dropped to 2.2.

 

Gutted!

well, right now is not rightly the right time to start to sniveling about it. Look around I.E. and take tips from the likes of me who have whored to new levels (in the posting way only of course). Increase your daily average...do it Post haste!

 

 

 

 

 

(and I see Jasper Larkspur has reunited himself with the second place berth (and is less than 400 from dispensing with TriteFlounder) Excellent work Jasper...though I am unsure if my loyalty should be more towards you or MaryPort...Perhaps a bucket of ice cream would end my confusion)

[in eternum+ 22]

Right, apologies for failing to appear on page 10 of this thread, I can't let the same happen on page 11!

 

My post per day is now at a steady journeyman-like 1.6, although I again whoreishly draw your attention to my fairer, more accurate way of working out post rates. I joined in November '05 but due to my overwhelming fear of posting complete rubbish on the site (long since conquered) I carefully waited until Feb 6th before making my virgin post, and by God what a post it was....it took two more weeks to sum up the courage to post again!

 

So, using the recently approved 'TLC post weighting index' I have actually made 2.2 posts per day since my first post. Thank you.

Yeah yeah yeah. Nice try, One-Point-Six Boy.

[in eternum+ 22]

Right, apologies for failing to appear on page 10 of this thread, I can't let the same happen on page 11!

 

My post per day is now at a steady journeyman-like 1.6, although I again whoreishly draw your attention to my fairer, more accurate way of working out post rates. I joined in November '05 but due to my overwhelming fear of posting complete rubbish on the site (long since conquered) I carefully waited until Feb 6th before making my virgin post, and by God what a post it was....it took two more weeks to sum up the courage to post again!

 

So, using the recently approved 'TLC post weighting index' I have actually made 2.2 posts per day since my first post. Thank you.

Yeah yeah yeah. Nice try, One-Point-Six Boy.

P.S. Bruno, is this the kind of thing you were referring to?

[BrunoBrimley 86]

P.S. Bruno, is this the kind of thing you were referring to?

I refuse to answer on the grounds that I might be bitch slapped if I do...(am I allowed to say bitch slapped here?)

[TLC 9]

Right, apologies for failing to appear on page 10 of this thread, I can't let the same happen on page 11!

 

My post per day is now at a steady journeyman-like 1.6, although I again whoreishly draw your attention to my fairer, more accurate way of working out post rates. I joined in November '05 but due to my overwhelming fear of posting complete rubbish on the site (long since conquered) I carefully waited until Feb 6th before making my virgin post, and by God what a post it was....it took two more weeks to sum up the courage to post again!

 

So, using the recently approved 'TLC post weighting index' I have actually made 2.2 posts per day since my first post. Thank you.

Yeah yeah yeah. Nice try, One-Point-Six Boy.

I should have expected exactly this type of Luddite backlash from one so proudly 'old skool'. The fact that technically you're correct is not the point. Oh hang on, it is isn't it? Damn.

 

Hopefully we can keep this non-argument going for long enough for me to reach my '2.2 average' dream in a way that will keep the purists happy. [calculator] Although I reckon the required 150 posts by the end of today may be beyond me somewhat. [/calculator] I can hear the collective sigh of disappointment from here.

[in eternum+ 22]

Yeah yeah yeah. Nice try, One-Point-Six Boy.

I should have expected exactly this type of Luddite backlash from one so proudly 'old skool'. The fact that technically you're correct is not the point. Oh hang on, it is isn't it? Damn.

 

Hopefully we can keep this non-argument going for long enough for me to reach my '2.2 average' dream in a way that will keep the purists happy. [calculator] Although I reckon the required 150 posts by the end of today may be beyond me somewhat. [/calculator] I can hear the collective sigh of disappointment from here.

If you think I'm going to reply to this post simply so that you can self-servingly raise your own post count, you've got another thing coming and/or you're sorely mistaken! I would not deign to encourage such behaviour!

 

What've you got to say about that, eh??

[DevonDeathTrip 2,358]

I still think that, with a bit of effort and determination, I will one day become a post-twunt.

 

If my post count is 1.35 a day and I joined on 1st July 05, could someone mathematically inclined tell me when I'm likely to achive twuntdom. I tried to work it out myself and came up with 180 BC... and that can't be right.

[maryportfuncity 10,646]

You're posting 4 times every three days, roughly. Meaning at that rate you'll get there in 168 days, give or take. Feb 15th 2007, or summat.

[Star Crossed 33]

You're posting 4 times every three days, roughly. Meaning at that rate you'll get there in 168 days, give or take. Feb 15th 2007, or summat.

I'd often wondered how this consummate professional kept his stats up.

 

Presumably, mpfc's ability to consistently crack out double-figures every day is thanks largely to posting frenzies like this tonight:-

11:57

11:59

12:02

12:04

12:07

(coffee break, or summat)

12:26

12:28

The last one is fair enough; mpfc's rekindled a shining moment in cinema which was both well-conceived and acted but the rest of these, I would contend, are filler. Pure and simple.

[BrunoBrimley 86]

You're posting 4 times every three days, roughly. Meaning at that rate you'll get there in 168 days, give or take. Feb 15th 2007, or summat.

I'd often wondered how this consummate professional kept his stats up.

 

Presumably, mpfc's ability to consistently crack out double-figures every day is thanks largely to posting frenzies like this tonight:-

11:57

11:59

12:02

12:04

12:07

(coffee break, or summat)

12:26

12:28

The last one is fair enough; mpfc's rekindled a shining moment in cinema which was both well-conceived and acted but the rest of these, I would contend, are filler. Pure and simple.

Jelaousy is the profit of idle idolizing minds Starry....

[maryportfuncity 10,646]

Re the stats. I think it worth pointing out that I'm the one who's called consistently for the whole practice of printing the number of posts to be abolished. I haven't a clue what useful purpose it serves other than to give some rough indication of loyalty hereabouts.

 

Reet, I'm away to post twenty times in as many minutes, see ya around.

[Star Crossed 33]

... I'm the one who's called consistently for the whole practice of printing the number of posts to be abolished.

That might be because you're one of the people who has the most face to lose when people see your post-count. The post-count should be kept visible for precisely that reason; so we can see just how many posts people are slopping out.

I haven't a clue what useful purpose it serves other than to give some rough indication of loyalty hereabouts. ...

I don't think loyalty is the issue here, mpfc. Nobody should think that a high post-count is somehow directly proportional to loyalty. I'm sure there are plenty of members who have been "loyal" to the DL for a lot longer than us, whose post-counts are only in double figures. Their posts, however few and far between, have probably been of high quality and nobody's questioning their "loyalty". This loyalty issue is just a smokescreen you've belched out to cover the central issue; that your post-count is excessively high, leading to an overall degradation in the quality. You're a funny, intelligent guy but you spread yourself too thin, consistently. That alone is the issue.

[maryportfuncity 10,646]

It's an internet forum, we're not runnin' a country here! You've also missed the point totally about the numbers. The reason I made the suggestion in the first place was to stop anyone getting agitated about the numbers and keeping the focus on the issues and the banter.

[BrunoBrimley 86]

...This loyalty issue is just a smokescreen you've belched out to cover the central issue; that your post-count is excessively high, leading to an overall degradation in the quality. You're a funny, intelligent guy but you spread yourself too thin, consistently. That alone is the issue.

 

 

As ppereviously strated Straryy Jealousy is the profit of the idle idolized mind.......try to not forgete it.

[Tempus Fugit 214]

... I'm the one who's called consistently for the whole practice of printing the number of posts to be abolished.

That might be because you're one of the people who has the most face to lose when people see your post-count. The post-count should be kept visible for precisely that reason; so we can see just how many posts people are slopping out.

I haven't a clue what useful purpose it serves other than to give some rough indication of loyalty hereabouts. ...

I don't think loyalty is the issue here, mpfc. Nobody should think that a high post-count is somehow directly proportional to loyalty. I'm sure there are plenty of members who have been "loyal" to the DL for a lot longer than us, whose post-counts are only in double figures. Their posts, however few and far between, have probably been of high quality and nobody's questioning their "loyalty". This loyalty issue is just a smokescreen you've belched out to cover the central issue; that your post-count is excessively high, leading to an overall degradation in the quality. You're a funny, intelligent guy but you spread yourself too thin, consistently. That alone is the issue.

Total bollocks, an internet forum relies on regular posters otherwise it's a pretty F*****g pointless exercise.

 

There was no goldenage of DeathList, looking back through all the old threads as I have done previously there was just the same percentage of shite as there is today.

[The Pooka 26]

... I'm the one who's called consistently for the whole practice of printing the number of posts to be abolished.

That might be because you're one of the people who has the most face to lose when people see your post-count. The post-count should be kept visible for precisely that reason; so we can see just how many posts people are slopping out.

I haven't a clue what useful purpose it serves other than to give some rough indication of loyalty hereabouts. ...

I don't think loyalty is the issue here, mpfc. Nobody should think that a high post-count is somehow directly proportional to loyalty. I'm sure there are plenty of members who have been "loyal" to the DL for a lot longer than us, whose post-counts are only in double figures. Their posts, however few and far between, have probably been of high quality and nobody's questioning their "loyalty". This loyalty issue is just a smokescreen you've belched out to cover the central issue; that your post-count is excessively high, leading to an overall degradation in the quality. You're a funny, intelligent guy but you spread yourself too thin, consistently. That alone is the issue.

Jesus, Star-crossed. I wish I could take anything as seriously as you take everything.

[Star Crossed 33]

Jesus, Star-crossed. I wish I could take anything as seriously as you take everything.

Jesus? Jesus? Don't give me f**king Jesus! What did he have to contend with? Fishes, loaves, water, wine, crucifixion? Whatever... he never tried reducing the amount of whoring (often mis-labelled "banter") on DeathList, did he? Did he? Eh? What you saying now, Jesus-fish? Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus Chriiiiist!

[Magere Hein 1,400]

Jesus? Jesus? Don't give me f**king Jesus! What did he have to contend with? Fishes, loaves, water, wine, crucifixion? Whatever... he never tried reducing the amount of whoring (often mis-labelled "banter") on DeathList, did he? Did he? Eh? What you saying now, Jesus-fish? Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus Chriiiiist!

The episode with the first stone was about an adulteress, IIRC, possibly a whore. May we all learn a lesson from that story.

 

regards,

Hein

[Guest Guest]

Jesus, Star-crossed. I wish I could take anything as seriously as you take everything.

Jesus? Jesus? Don't give me f**king Jesus! What did he have to contend with? Fishes, loaves, water, wine, crucifixion? Whatever... he never tried reducing the amount of whoring (often mis-labelled "banter") on DeathList, did he? Did he? Eh? What you saying now, Jesus-fish? Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus Chriiiiist!

Wrong Star-crossed.

 

Jesus, Aesop, and indeed Confucius, were constantly troubled in their production of parables by trolling, flaming, ranting and whoring. No sooner had a decent parable been promulgated then the author would be inundated with mountains of unsolicited papyrus from attention-seekers commenting on grammar and spelling or offering dull and irrelevant observations on contemporary entertainers fallen on bad times

eg Rehman O'Sulliman, reclusive ex-star of Man About the Temple.

[TLC 9]

Jesus, Star-crossed. I wish I could take anything as seriously as you take everything.

Jesus? Jesus? Don't give me f**king Jesus! What did he have to contend with? Fishes, loaves, water, wine, crucifixion? Whatever... he never tried reducing the amount of whoring (often mis-labelled "banter") on DeathList, did he? Did he? Eh? What you saying now, Jesus-fish? Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus Chriiiiist!

Wrong Star-crossed.

 

Jesus, Aesop, and indeed Confucius, were constantly troubled in their production of parables by trolling, flaming, ranting and whoring. No sooner had a decent parable been promulgated then the author would be inundated with mountains of unsolicited papyrus from attention-seekers commenting on grammar and spelling or offering dull and irrelevant observations on contemporary entertainers fallen on bad times

eg Rehman O'Sulliman, reclusive ex-star of Man About the Temple.

I think you'll find that's Star Crossed. Sorry.

 

In these modern times I am happy to stand up and admit my whoring, I am not ashamed of providing what I consider to be a vital service. Sometimes it's only the spectacularly dull, ill-informed, inflammatory, off-topic, quasi-English posts (or any combination of the above) that lead to the some of the better posts which rip them to shreds, or at least kick-start a lively debate.

 

I'd like to think I contribute to the terribly witty replies, but concede I'm far more likely to unwittingly set them up. Quite often an AtJ-level of quality reply is only possible with an Iain-style comment first, which is good enough for me. I'd rather have both than neither.

 

Must say I preferred Ibis's Nest.

[Windsor 2,233]

In these modern times I am happy to stand up and admit my whoring, I am not ashamed of providing what I consider to be a vital service.

 

Thats what post-whore annonymous does to you...