|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: BretCahillBretCahill Date: Aug 26, 2008 22:37
If you get a lot of responses under different handles, all with
nothing to say, is it any better than having zero readership of people
with somethig to say?
Bret Cahill
|
| |
|
| | 23 Comments |
|
|
Author: curmudgeoncurmudgeon Date: Aug 26, 2008 23:11
peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:b46bc6e5-ecb9-411d-9d0d-cf2c6e490e89@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
If you get a lot of responses under different handles, all with
nothing to say, is it any better than having zero readership of people
with something to say?
Bret Cahill
Almost everyone has something to say,
but not everyone is understood when they say it.
*curmudgeon*
"The best read illiterate in the country"
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Aug 26, 2008 23:22
> If you get a lot of responses under different handles, all with
> nothing to say, is it any better than having zero readership of people
> with somethig to say?
>
> Bret Cahill
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedRod Speed Date: Aug 26, 2008 23:26
> If you get a lot of responses under different handles, all with nothing to say,
> is it any better than having zero readership of people with somethig to say?
You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out, child.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BretCahillBretCahill Date: Aug 26, 2008 23:29
>> If you get a lot of responses under different handles, all with nothing to say,
>> is it any better than having zero readership of people with somethig to say?
> You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out, child.
Git 'em, Rod, git 'em.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BretCahillBretCahill Date: Aug 26, 2008 23:31
>> If you get a lot of responses under different handles, all with
>> nothing to say, is it any better than having zero readership of people
>> with somethig to say?
> For you; no.
It's pretty much the same, ain't it?
> The more responses you receive
But are they _quality_ responses.
Sock puppets don't do much for me.
Bret Cahill
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BretCahillBretCahill Date: Aug 26, 2008 23:33
> If you get a lot of responses under different handles, all with
> nothing to say, is it any better than having zero readership of people
> with something to say?
> Almost everyone has something to say,
Irrelevant if they don't say it.
Bret Cahill
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Aug 27, 2008 05:13
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:37:40 -0700, BretCahill wrote:
> If you get a lot of responses under different handles, all with nothing
> to say, is it any better than having zero readership of people with
> somethig to say?
If one posts in search of a constructive interaction or if the post is
driven by vanity which demands attention, then these will need responses.
However, there is also worth in posting just for yourself making response
and readership secondary. If nothing else it is good typing practice.
Also, just putting a thought down helps, as long as it is NG OT!
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John LarkinJohn Larkin Date: Aug 27, 2008 08:57
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:37:40 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@ peoplepc.com
wrote:
>If you get a lot of responses under different handles, all with
>nothing to say, is it any better than having zero readership of people
>with somethig to say?
>
>
>Bret Cahill
>
If your posts are content-free, does it matter how many people
respond?
John
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: BretCahillBretCahill Date: Aug 28, 2008 21:57
Put out the shoe and the idiots fall over themselves trying to get
their feet to get.
>>If you get a lot of responses under different handles, all with
>>nothing to say, is it any better than having zero readership of people
>>with somethig to say?
> If your posts are content-free, does it matter how many people
> respond?
Why would anyone (except maybe a sock puppeteer with nothing to say)
respond to a content-free post?
You stepped right into that one.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
