A Cattle Call Section Instead of Being on Repeated @Lists

If you had a mailbox, and that mailbox got nothing but junk mail .... wouldn't it make more sense to simply stop going to the mailbox and whining about what's in it, than require every junk mailer to consult vast lists of what mailboxes were off limits?

OTOH it's a rare rare thread that really needs a long list of mentions. Syrenn put one up a while ago to generate a "Who's Who" project; that's one of the rare ones. But "just to generate traffic" is certainly not a valid reason. If I put a thread up and it's a worthy topic, it should draw traffic (or fail to) on its own merits. I'd only toss a mention to a poster I had reason to believe would be individually interested for their own personal reasons. So for me the only legitimate uses would be if somebody is personally referenced in the post, or if they had a particular expertise/involvement in the topic that would make them valuable for input.

But that's a judgement call; there's no way to enforce that and no way for the site to judge a mentioner's motives.
 
If you had a mailbox, and that mailbox got nothing but junk mail .... wouldn't it make more sense to simply stop going to the mailbox and whining about what's in it, than require every junk mailer to consult vast lists of what mailboxes were off limits?

OTOH it's a rare rare thread that really needs a long list of mentions. Syrenn put one up a while ago to generate a "Who's Who" project; that's one of the rare ones. But "just to generate traffic" is certainly not a valid reason. If I put a thread up and it's a worthy topic, it should draw traffic (or fail to) on its own merits. I'd only toss a mention to a poster I had reason to believe would be individually interested for their own personal reasons. So for me the only legitimate uses would be if somebody is personally referenced in the post, or if they had a particular expertise/involvement in the topic that would make them valuable for input.

But that's a judgement call; there's no way to enforce that and no way for the site to judge a mentioner's motives.

Sorry, but I can't resist pointing out how impractical Liberals are. How short sighted they are.

What if you depend on that mailbox being the place where you would get your welfare check or love letters from your partner or Astroglide samples?

You wouldn't just disregard EVERYTHING in it.

The answer is NOT to just stop going to the mailbox.

:cuckoo:
 
Actually, I'm starting to change my mind. I am o.k. with being mentioned and going to check what it's about and many times I am glad I was called. But for the first time since all this started I got mentioned repeatedly for the same thread every time someone quoted the OP with the mention list. That is very annoying. That is something the OP of a thread that uses those should consider. Go ahead and do the list but take the names off after everyone has been mentioned so they don't get repeated calls to the same thread. And yes, I do check my mentions.
 
If you had a mailbox, and that mailbox got nothing but junk mail .... wouldn't it make more sense to simply stop going to the mailbox and whining about what's in it, than require every junk mailer to consult vast lists of what mailboxes were off limits?

OTOH it's a rare rare thread that really needs a long list of mentions. Syrenn put one up a while ago to generate a "Who's Who" project; that's one of the rare ones. But "just to generate traffic" is certainly not a valid reason. If I put a thread up and it's a worthy topic, it should draw traffic (or fail to) on its own merits. I'd only toss a mention to a poster I had reason to believe would be individually interested for their own personal reasons. So for me the only legitimate uses would be if somebody is personally referenced in the post, or if they had a particular expertise/involvement in the topic that would make them valuable for input.

But that's a judgement call; there's no way to enforce that and no way for the site to judge a mentioner's motives.

Sorry, but I can't resist pointing out how impractical Liberals are. How short sighted they are.

What if you depend on that mailbox being the place where you would get your welfare check or love letters from your partner or Astroglide samples?

You wouldn't just disregard EVERYTHING in it.

The answer is NOT to just stop going to the mailbox.

:cuckoo:

In this analogy there are no checks, there are no letters. There's just junk. That's all 'mentions' are anyway. Pretending they're something valuable, I believe that's your problem.
 
Actually, I'm starting to change my mind. I am o.k. with being mentioned and going to check what it's about and many times I am glad I was called. But for the first time since all this started I got mentioned repeatedly for the same thread every time someone quoted the OP with the mention list. That is very annoying. That is something the OP of a thread that uses those should consider. Go ahead and do the list but take the names off after everyone has been mentioned so they don't get repeated calls to the same thread. And yes, I do check my mentions.

I wasn't aware that quoting the OP generated new mentions.. That could get ugly.
:eek:

But this is what I said earlier. When folks start USING mentions to generate important mail in the box --- it WILL get annoying in the future..
 
If you had a mailbox, and that mailbox got nothing but junk mail .... wouldn't it make more sense to simply stop going to the mailbox and whining about what's in it, than require every junk mailer to consult vast lists of what mailboxes were off limits?

OTOH it's a rare rare thread that really needs a long list of mentions. Syrenn put one up a while ago to generate a "Who's Who" project; that's one of the rare ones. But "just to generate traffic" is certainly not a valid reason. If I put a thread up and it's a worthy topic, it should draw traffic (or fail to) on its own merits. I'd only toss a mention to a poster I had reason to believe would be individually interested for their own personal reasons. So for me the only legitimate uses would be if somebody is personally referenced in the post, or if they had a particular expertise/involvement in the topic that would make them valuable for input.

But that's a judgement call; there's no way to enforce that and no way for the site to judge a mentioner's motives.

Sorry, but I can't resist pointing out how impractical Liberals are. How short sighted they are.

What if you depend on that mailbox being the place where you would get your welfare check or love letters from your partner or Astroglide samples?

You wouldn't just disregard EVERYTHING in it.

The answer is NOT to just stop going to the mailbox.

:cuckoo:

In this analogy there are no checks, there are no letters. There's just junk. That's all 'mentions' are anyway. Pretending they're something valuable, I believe that's your problem.

You believe incorrectly.

Everyone here in this thread agrees that the @mention function is useful, helpful and popular for purposes other than the bullshit social gatherings I guess you enjoy being invited to.
 
Sorry, but I can't resist pointing out how impractical Liberals are. How short sighted they are.

What if you depend on that mailbox being the place where you would get your welfare check or love letters from your partner or Astroglide samples?

You wouldn't just disregard EVERYTHING in it.

The answer is NOT to just stop going to the mailbox.

:cuckoo:

In this analogy there are no checks, there are no letters. There's just junk. That's all 'mentions' are anyway. Pretending they're something valuable, I believe that's your problem.

You believe incorrectly.

Everyone here in this thread agrees that the @mention function is useful, helpful and popular for purposes other than the bullshit social gatherings I guess you enjoy being invited to.

Well I tellya what. As noted from the beginning I don't bother with that stuff and I get by just fine, and you're the one with the endless angst about it.

What does that tell you?
 
Last edited:
In this analogy there are no checks, there are no letters. There's just junk. That's all 'mentions' are anyway. Pretending they're something valuable, I believe that's your problem.

You believe incorrectly.

Everyone here in this thread agrees that the @mention function is useful, helpful and popular for purposes other than the bullshit social gatherings I guess you enjoy being invited to.

Well I tellya what. As noted from the beginning I don't bother with that stuff and I get by just fine, and you're the one with the endless angst about it.

What does that tell you?

It tells me you are a silly little poster.

But don't feel bad.

:D
 
You believe incorrectly.

Everyone here in this thread agrees that the @mention function is useful, helpful and popular for purposes other than the bullshit social gatherings I guess you enjoy being invited to.

Well I tellya what. As noted from the beginning I don't bother with that stuff and I get by just fine, and you're the one with the endless angst about it.

What does that tell you?

It tells me you are a silly little poster.

But don't feel bad.

:D

I don't. That's my point.

Do you see me starting threads to complain I have no notifications to check? No. Because I don't let them bother me.

Get it yet?
 
You believe incorrectly.

Everyone here in this thread agrees that the @mention function is useful, helpful and popular for purposes other than the bullshit social gatherings I guess you enjoy being invited to.

We possibly differ on this point. The "@" function, when used in a post directly following a high-quality OP, generates a lot of good discussion. If used in that way, while making sure the list isn't repeatedly quoted, is not BS but instead really enjoyable. When I aim to start a good discussion, the goal is to then have one. A good OP is like a party. You prepare a really good one, and then you send out invitations. All of it's done to have a really good gathering. That, my friend, is one of the most enjoyable things a person can have on a message board like this one. :smiliehug:

EDIT: Either putting the list in the 2nd post or, as Wolfsister said deleting the list quickly afterward would eliminate that one problem entirely.
 
Last edited:
Well I tellya what. As noted from the beginning I don't bother with that stuff and I get by just fine, and you're the one with the endless angst about it.

What does that tell you?

It tells me you are a silly little poster.

But don't feel bad.

:D

I don't. That's my point.

Do you see me starting threads to complain I have no notifications to check? No. Because I don't let them bother me.

Get it yet?

I tolerate you.

Like one tolerates those who love the Kardashians.
 
You believe incorrectly.

Everyone here in this thread agrees that the @mention function is useful, helpful and popular for purposes other than the bullshit social gatherings I guess you enjoy being invited to.

We possibly differ on this point. The "@" function, when used in a post directly following a high-quality OP, generates a lot of good discussion. If used in that way, while making sure the list isn't repeatedly quoted, is not BS but instead really enjoyable. When I aim to start a good discussion, the goal is to then have one. A good OP is like a party. You prepare a really good one, and then you send out invitations. All of it's done to have a really good gathering. That, my friend, is one of the most enjoyable things a person can have on a message board like this one. :smiliehug:

EDIT: Either putting the list in the 2nd post or, as Wolfsister said deleting the list quickly afterward would eliminate that one problem entirely.

Well, shit!

I have never thought of issuing invites to my threads.

If it's mere presence doesn't generate visitorship (and maybe an infrequent "bump" to have it seen by more posters) or doesn't result in a good attendance, I always thought that was the will of the people at work.

But now I will compile my own lists and EVERYONE on the opposing side of my stance here is SURE to be invited to every single one of my future threads!

Thanks for the idea!

:D
 
You believe incorrectly.

Everyone here in this thread agrees that the @mention function is useful, helpful and popular for purposes other than the bullshit social gatherings I guess you enjoy being invited to.

We possibly differ on this point. The "@" function, when used in a post directly following a high-quality OP, generates a lot of good discussion. If used in that way, while making sure the list isn't repeatedly quoted, is not BS but instead really enjoyable. When I aim to start a good discussion, the goal is to then have one. A good OP is like a party. You prepare a really good one, and then you send out invitations. All of it's done to have a really good gathering. That, my friend, is one of the most enjoyable things a person can have on a message board like this one. :smiliehug:

EDIT: Either putting the list in the 2nd post or, as Wolfsister said deleting the list quickly afterward would eliminate that one problem entirely.

Excellent idea Wake. Whoever wants to @ folks can do so in the second post that has nothing but the @ list. That is very unlikely to get quoted. So everyone who does this-go ahead and follow that policy please!!
 
You believe incorrectly.

Everyone here in this thread agrees that the @mention function is useful, helpful and popular for purposes other than the bullshit social gatherings I guess you enjoy being invited to.

We possibly differ on this point. The "@" function, when used in a post directly following a high-quality OP, generates a lot of good discussion. If used in that way, while making sure the list isn't repeatedly quoted, is not BS but instead really enjoyable. When I aim to start a good discussion, the goal is to then have one. A good OP is like a party. You prepare a really good one, and then you send out invitations. All of it's done to have a really good gathering. That, my friend, is one of the most enjoyable things a person can have on a message board like this one. :smiliehug:

EDIT: Either putting the list in the 2nd post or, as Wolfsister said deleting the list quickly afterward would eliminate that one problem entirely.

Excellent idea Wake. Whoever wants to @ folks can do so in the second post that has nothing but the @ list. That is very unlikely to get quoted. So everyone who does this-go ahead and follow that policy please!!

Sorry, but I can't agree. Your idea is better than mine, because unlike your idea there's the possibility someone might quote the 2nd post. :D
 
We possibly differ on this point. The "@" function, when used in a post directly following a high-quality OP, generates a lot of good discussion. If used in that way, while making sure the list isn't repeatedly quoted, is not BS but instead really enjoyable. When I aim to start a good discussion, the goal is to then have one. A good OP is like a party. You prepare a really good one, and then you send out invitations. All of it's done to have a really good gathering. That, my friend, is one of the most enjoyable things a person can have on a message board like this one. :smiliehug:

EDIT: Either putting the list in the 2nd post or, as Wolfsister said deleting the list quickly afterward would eliminate that one problem entirely.

Excellent idea Wake. Whoever wants to @ folks can do so in the second post that has nothing but the @ list. That is very unlikely to get quoted. So everyone who does this-go ahead and follow that policy please!!

Sorry, but I can't agree. Your idea is better than mine, because unlike your idea there's the possibility someone might quote the 2nd post. :D

Actually, now that I think about it, they'd probably do it on purpose now-:lol:
 
You believe incorrectly.

Everyone here in this thread agrees that the @mention function is useful, helpful and popular for purposes other than the bullshit social gatherings I guess you enjoy being invited to.

We possibly differ on this point. The "@" function, when used in a post directly following a high-quality OP, generates a lot of good discussion. If used in that way, while making sure the list isn't repeatedly quoted, is not BS but instead really enjoyable. When I aim to start a good discussion, the goal is to then have one. A good OP is like a party. You prepare a really good one, and then you send out invitations. All of it's done to have a really good gathering. That, my friend, is one of the most enjoyable things a person can have on a message board like this one. :smiliehug:

EDIT: Either putting the list in the 2nd post or, as Wolfsister said deleting the list quickly afterward would eliminate that one problem entirely.

Well, shit!

I have never thought of issuing invites to my threads.

If it's mere presence doesn't generate visitorship (and maybe an infrequent "bump" to have it seen by more posters) or doesn't result in a good attendance, I always thought that was the will of the people at work.

But now I will compile my own lists and EVERYONE on the opposing side of my stance here is SURE to be invited to every single one of my future threads!

Thanks for the idea!

:D

Go right ahead. And if you think it's going to shake their world then you still don't get the point.

Not sure why you're obsessed with having an obscure little notifications box control you. :dunno:
 

Forum List

Back
Top