|
|
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
|
|
|
|
Author: curmudgeonDate: 02:11 27-08-08
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: turtoniDate: 02:22 27-08-08
|
|
On Aug 27, 1:37=A0am, BretCah...@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
For you; no.
The more responses you receive the more attention you garner; which in
turn empowers you with some kind of meaning. Thrills you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DfvP0uwl3Q6A
|
|
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedDate: 02:26 27-08-08
|
|
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?
You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out, child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
> > 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
> > 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
> 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
|
|
|
|
Author: ZerkonXDate: 08:13 27-08-08
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
Author: John LarkinDate: 11:57 27-08-08
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Author: John LarkinDate: 01:16 29-08-08
|
|
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:57:21 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:
>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.
>
>
>
>
Why do you post to sci.electronics.basics when you have nothing to say
about electronics?
Why do you keep playing these silly grammar-school games?
Why post admittedly content-free crap?
I don't know what your sock puppet obsession is about. I suppose you
like the words or something.
Ever drive a tractor?
What's your opinion on analog versus digital oscilloscopes? What kind
of scope do you have?
John
|
|
|
|
Author: turtoniDate: 02:23 29-08-08
|
|
On Aug 29, 12:57=A0am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> 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.
"Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap"
heh heh heh. ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DfvP0uwl3Q6A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Still another example of a delusional trying to deny the public
record.
> >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.
> Why do you post to sci.electronics.basics when you have nothing to say
> about electronics?
Anyone can gooooooogle your name(s) and see you never had any
interaction [outside the sock puppetry] with anyone else on anything
related to science or technology.
The real givaway is you lack the ability to write in different
styles.
If you ever want to make it in science fiction you will have to
develop your characters better.
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
Author: John FieldsDate: 07:03 29-08-08
|
|
>> Why do you post to sci.electronics.basics when you have nothing to say
>> about electronics?
>
>Anyone can gooooooogle your name(s) and see you never had any
>interaction [outside the sock puppetry] with anyone else on anything
>related to science or technology.
---
More evasion and lies?
The question was:
"Why do you post to sci.electronics.basics when you have nothing to
say about electronics?",
So answer it.
JF
|
|
|
|
|
|
> >> Why do you post to sci.electronics.basics when you have nothing to say
> >> about electronics?
> >Anyone can gooooooogle your name(s) and see you never had any
> >interaction [outside the sock puppetry] with anyone else on anything
> >related to science or technology.
> More evasion and lies?
Are you outing yourself or just projecting again?
> The question was:
Do sock puppets count as readership?
I never got an answer to that question.
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
Author: John LarkinDate: 11:37 29-08-08
|
|
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 03:53:10 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:
>Still another example of a delusional trying to deny the public
>record.
>
>> >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.
>
>> Why do you post to sci.electronics.basics when you have nothing to say
>> about electronics?
>
>Anyone can gooooooogle your name(s) and see you never had any
>interaction [outside the sock puppetry] with anyone else on anything
>related to science or technology.
Check sci.electronics.design.
I've used only the name John Larkin since I was born. But there are
very many other John Larkins in the world, so if you google the name
you're unlikely to find me.
I've never posted anything by any other name or nickname.
>
>The real givaway is you lack the ability to write in different
>styles.
I can write in various styles, but always under the same name.
>
>If you ever want to make it in science fiction you will have to
>develop your characters better.
Let's talk about oscilloscopes. Or anything else of substance.
You always snip the real stuff and leave only the juvenile banter. No
doubt you will again.
John
|
|
|
|
Author: John LarkinDate: 11:38 29-08-08
|
|
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 04:44:28 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:
>> >> Why do you post to sci.electronics.basics when you have nothing to say
>> >> about electronics?
>
>> >Anyone can gooooooogle your name(s) and see you never had any
>> >interaction [outside the sock puppetry] with anyone else on anything
>> >related to science or technology.
>
>> More evasion and lies?
>
>Are you outing yourself or just projecting again?
>
>> The question was:
>
>Do sock puppets count as readership?
>
>I never got an answer to that question.
>
>
>Bret Cahill
I bet you snip your life a lot, too.
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
> >The real givaway is you lack the ability to write in different
> >styles.
> I can write in various styles,
Moron 1.11 style, moron 1.12 style. . . ._very_ nuanced.
> but always under the same name.
The only other explanation is there is some kind of group think
problem. This could also explains why you, et. al., have no patent
numbers or anything else to document that you even exist.
Herd animals are not known for creativity.
> >If you ever want to make it in science fiction you will have to
> >develop your characters better.
> Let's talk about oscilloscopes.
Yes, let's talk about why don't you stick to oscilloscope threads?
What are you doing here?
I put out the shoe and like a criminal returning to the scene of the
crime, you appear to want to put your foot into it.
That's just stoopid.
> Or anything else of substance.
It's irrational to post to a thread that you believe lacks substance.
As long as you appear to be irrational, then no one other than sock
puppets or idiots will ever believe you have ever accomplished
_anything_.
The only explanation is you are endulging in a fantsy world.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
Author: John FieldsDate: 13:00 29-08-08
|
|
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 04:44:28 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:
>> >> Why do you post to sci.electronics.basics when you have nothing to say
>> >> about electronics?
>
>> >Anyone can gooooooogle your name(s) and see you never had any
>> >interaction [outside the sock puppetry] with anyone else on anything
>> >related to science or technology.
>
>> More evasion and lies?
>
>Are you outing yourself or just projecting again?
---
Neither. I thought it was fairly obvious that I was pointing out that
you're an evasive liar who knows nothing at all about electronics and
yet insists on making himself a pest where he knows he's not welcome.
---
>> The question was:
>
>Do sock puppets count as readership?
No, the question was:
"Why do you post to sci.electronics.basics when you have nothing to
say about electronics?"
JF
|
|
|
|
Author: John FieldsDate: 13:01 29-08-08
|
|
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?
---
Another nonsensical question?
JF
|
|
|
|
|
