Conquer Club

Are there past or present forum regulars with whom you do not interact?

As an example, I do not anticipate interacting with CBlake on an even irregular basis. I also rarely interact with Quirk. Might be interesting to see whose paths cross. Or maybe not interesting.

I mostly try to avoid the people that post in the thread about skeletons with balloons/Photoshop on their chest.

What do you mean?

We interact with each other--regardless of whether or not we intend to. E.g. I make this post, other people read it, thus we're interacting.

The only time I have ever noticed this is with one person with which I was more or less forced to not associate with. I'm not mad or anything, that's just my personal experience.
Actually, now that I think about it, I don't associate with those generals who just poke their heads in every once in a while and repeat or agree with what someone else already wrote and think that because they are generals their word means more, etc.. I just don't jive with that mentality.

Neoteny wrote:I mostly try to avoid the people that post in the thread about skeletons with balloons/Photoshop on their chest.

I avoid that thread like a plague.
My interaction with people is limited mostly to OT.

BigBallinStalin wrote:What do you mean?

We interact with each other--regardless of whether or not we intend to. E.g. I make this post, other people read it, thus we're interacting.

There are posters who I do not regularly (or even occasoinally) read or reply to. That's what I mean. Given the spacing of the subject line, I could not put in the subject "Forum Regulars with Whom You Don't Interact on a Regular Basis." And yes, I tried to type that in the subject line.

I know that CBlake exists because I see his name on threads in the forum page. I know that Quirk exists because I see him reply to things in that longest thread thread.

By interact, do you mean sexually? Sorry, I just got done reading Saxi's topic about couple and sex.

I feel like the majority of forum regulars I do not interact with, if I define interact as referencing by name. I am pretty sure I reference TGD, BBS, Gilli, Strike Wolf, Quirk, Jonesy, Phatscotty, and maybe a few others.


--Andy

I would say that interacting means, loosely speaking, someone whose posts you directly reply to.

Funkyterrance wrote:I would say that interacting means, loosely speaking, someone whose posts you directly reply to.

Is that a nice way of saying they are easy?

kentington wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:I would say that interacting means, loosely speaking, someone whose posts you directly reply to.

Is that a nice way of saying they are easy?

Figuratively, yeah, I think this may be true since you don't directly reply to someone unless you expect them to reciprocate at least to the point of reading what you wrote.

Funkyterrance wrote:

kentington wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:I would say that interacting means, loosely speaking, someone whose posts you directly reply to.

Is that a nice way of saying they are easy?

Figuratively, yeah, I think this may be true since you don't directly reply to someone unless you expect them to reciprocate at least to the point of reading what you wrote.

True! I was just testing whether you would interact with me. Seems like we are a match.

I find that statistically you have a better chance of getting a response if you quote someone. After the quote you should start off with a hook:
1) Exclamation - That will get their attention
2) Joke - It works for jonesy
3) Call them an idiot - Most people will respond and interactions will start
4) Repeat what they said in your own words, but add a sexual twist - Sex intrigues internet people
5) Post a picture or graph that has little relevance to the topic or the poster you are quoting - People love statistics and graphs

This is the five step process for the interactionally challenged.

I have probably interacted with most regulars in the off topics. Either I have insulted them or they have insulted me, that's usually how a nice giving conversation starts in the off topics.
I can't remember ever having interacted with jimboston, though we probably have argued about something at some point.

kentington wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

kentington wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:I would say that interacting means, loosely speaking, someone whose posts you directly reply to.

Is that a nice way of saying they are easy?

Figuratively, yeah, I think this may be true since you don't directly reply to someone unless you expect them to reciprocate at least to the point of reading what you wrote.

True! I was just testing whether you would interact with me. Seems like we are a match.

I find that statistically you have a better chance of getting a response if you quote someone. After the quote you should start off with a hook:
1) Exclamation - That will get their attention
2) Joke - It works for jonesy
3) Call them an idiot - Most people will respond and interactions will start
4) Repeat what they said in your own words, but add a sexual twist - Sex intrigues internet people
5) Post a picture or graph that has little relevance to the topic or the poster you are quoting - People love statistics and graphs

This is the five step process for the interactionally challenged.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What was the Brown Paper Kid arrested for?
You're an idiot. And a toilet head.
Hmm. Not sure I know the "Sexual twist". Is it the pelvic thrust thaat really drives you insane?

jonesthecurl wrote:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What was the Brown Paper Kid arrested for?
You're an idiot. And a toilet head.
Hmm. Not sure I know the "Sexual twist". Is it the pelvic thrust thaat really drives you insane?

Congratulations! Stupid award goes to Curly man.
Consolation:

BTW, She is not wearing anything under that.

Disclaimer: Collect your discs in the lobby.

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:What do you mean?

We interact with each other--regardless of whether or not we intend to. E.g. I make this post, other people read it, thus we're interacting.

There are posters who I do not regularly (or even occasoinally) read or reply to. That's what I mean. Given the spacing of the subject line, I could not put in the subject "Forum Regulars with Whom You Don't Interact on a Regular Basis." And yes, I tried to type that in the subject line.

I know that CBlake exists because I see his name on threads in the forum page. I know that Quirk exists because I see him reply to things in that longest thread thread.

This is the most exposure I have ever gotten in someone else's thread since... Nam, and for all the wrong reasons too.. Nice!

thegreekdog, we interacted some until I stopped posting in the political threads for the most part. 2009 was my last attempt at a political discussion thread. You posted in it viewtopic.php?f=8&t=102591&start=15

thegreekdog wrote:I agree with Quirk

Quirk wrote:thegreekdog, we interacted some until I stopped posting in the political threads for the most part. 2009 was my last attempt at a political discussion thread. You posted in it viewtopic.php?f=8&t=102591&start=15

thegreekdog wrote:I agree with Quirk

Nice! I miss snorri.

For what it's worth, not interacting with someone does not equate to not wanting to interact. As you indicated, if you don't participate in political threads and if I don't participate in the Longest Thread, we're not going to interact. And that's fine.

Funkyterrance wrote:The only time I have ever noticed this is with one person with which I was more or less forced to not associate with. I'm not mad or anything, that's just my personal experience.
Actually, now that I think about it, I don't associate with those generals who just poke their heads in every once in a while and repeat or agree with what someone else already wrote and think that because they are generals their word means more, etc.. I just don't jive with that mentality.

I'm with funky on this.

ITT: Neoteny expresses his blind hatred for balloons

Army of GOD wrote:ITT: Neoteny expresses his blind hatred for balloons

And skeletons. He is a sack of skin in a lab coat.

-TG

laughingcavalier wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:The only time I have ever noticed this is with one person with which I was more or less forced to not associate with. I'm not mad or anything, that's just my personal experience.
Actually, now that I think about it, I don't associate with those generals who just poke their heads in every once in a while and repeat or agree with what someone else already wrote and think that because they are generals their word means more, etc.. I just don't jive with that mentality.

I'm with funky on this.

Naw man, you're cool.
It's a very specific type of poster and I'm afraid you don't qualify since you actually contribute from time to time but I hate to disappoint.

It's like I'm invisible and can say whatever I want... I LOVE BIEBERRRRR.. no one will probably read this anyway I think I am safe

CBlake wrote:It's like I'm invisible and can say whatever I want... I LOVE BIEBERRRRR.. no one will probably read this anyway I think I am safe

Qf.... erm.... I don't know

Funkyterrance wrote:

laughingcavalier wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:The only time I have ever noticed this is with one person with which I was more or less forced to not associate with. I'm not mad or anything, that's just my personal experience.
Actually, now that I think about it, I don't associate with those generals who just poke their heads in every once in a while and repeat or agree with what someone else already wrote and think that because they are generals their word means more, etc.. I just don't jive with that mentality.

I'm with funky on this.

Naw man, you're cool.
It's a very specific type of poster and I'm afraid you don't qualify since you actually contribute from time to time but I hate to disappoint.

If cavalier misses the greekie for that someone might be getting a kick in the nuts. Jus' sayin'.

I don't talk to ManBangalow at all because holy f*ck he's boring.

And smelly.