Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    16 Nov '13 18:42
    By my count, the last ten pages of threads (300 threads) were started by 45 different people. The top 11 thread generators (with the number of threads started) are as follows:

    48 Moon1969
    41 Whodey
    29 Bill718
    25 Elader
    16 e4Chris
    14 Duchess64
    13 KilgoreTrout15
    13 Sasquatch672
    11 JS357
    7 SH76
    7 empovsun

    99 out of 300 threads were started by either Moon1969 or Whodey. 224 out of 300 were started by the people on the above list. The other 34 people started a combined 76 threads, with 14 people starting only a single thread. For the record, I started 3.
  2. 16 Nov '13 20:14 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by rwingett
    By my count, the last ten pages of threads (300 threads) were started by 45 different people. The top 11 thread generators (with the number of threads started) are as follows:

    48 Moon1969
    41 Whodey
    29 Bill718
    25 Elader
    16 e4Chris
    14 Duchess64
    13 KilgoreTrout15
    13 Sasquatch672
    11 JS357
    7 SH76
    7 empovsun

    99 out of 300 threads were started by e ...[text shortened]... combined 76 threads, with 14 people starting only a single thread. For the record, I started 3.
    But thread creation should *not* be the most accurate measurement of
    'greatest blather'. Assuming (I know it's often untrue) that each thread's
    supposed to be created about a separate subject, all that it means for
    a writer to create many threads is that one's supposedly interested in
    many distinct issues, supposedly representing a diversity of interests.

    By your (Rwingett) preferred standard of measurement, a writer who has
    created two threads (writing one post in each) should be held responsible
    for more 'blather' than a writer who 'contributed' one hundred posts in a
    thread that one has not created. That's absurd. Should a writer who
    creates threads because one's interested in more subjects than the usual
    American 'liberal' vs 'conservative' battles be held responsible for more
    'blather' than someone's who obsessed with the American 'liberal' vs
    'conservative' battles and writes hundreds of posts in threads (created
    by others) about them?

    Why don't you (I know it would take more work) attempt to determine the
    total number of posts by writers in a specified period of time (let's say
    the last month)?
  3. 16 Nov '13 20:21
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    But thread creation should *not* be the most accurate measurement of
    'greatest blather'. Assuming (I know it's often untrue) that each thread's
    supposed to be created about a separate subject, all that it means for
    a writer to create mnay threads is that one's supposedly interested in
    many distinct issues, supposedly representing a diversity of inter ...[text shortened]... the
    total number of posts by writers in a specified period of time (let's say
    the last month)?
    I wonder what the count is like of the number of posts in a thread by the originator? Do people shepherd their threads? I doubt that there are many threads in which the originator just pops it up, and drops out of the conversation.
  4. 16 Nov '13 20:23
    Originally posted by normbenign
    I wonder what the count is like of the number of posts in a thread by the originator? Do people shepherd their threads? I doubt that there are many threads in which the originator just pops it up, and drops out of the conversation.
    My point is that a more accurate measurement of 'greatest blather' is the
    total number of posts rather than the total number of threads created.
  5. 16 Nov '13 20:30
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    My point is that a more accurate measurement of 'greatest blather' is the
    total number of posts rather than the total number of threads created.
    dos y dos son quatro, quatro y dos son seis. seis y dos son ocho y ocho, diez y seis
  6. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    17 Nov '13 02:51
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    But thread creation should *not* be the most accurate measurement of
    'greatest blather'. Assuming (I know it's often untrue) that each thread's
    supposed to be created about a separate subject, all that it means for
    a writer to create many threads is that one's supposedly interested in
    many distinct issues, supposedly representing a diversity of inter ...[text shortened]... the
    total number of posts by writers in a specified period of time (let's say
    the last month)?
    I don't have time to tabulate all that nonsense. I assume that Moon1969 and Whodey would run away with it again, though. You do have people like normbenign, for example, who post in many more threads than they start. I don't know what that would indicate. All I know is that we've got 300 posts and it seems like 298 of them are about Obamacare, either directly or indirectly.
  7. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    17 Nov '13 03:12
    Originally posted by rwingett
    By my count, the last ten pages of threads (300 threads) were started by 45 different people. The top 11 thread generators (with the number of threads started) are as follows:

    48 Moon1969
    41 Whodey
    29 Bill718
    25 Elader
    16 e4Chris
    14 Duchess64
    13 KilgoreTrout15
    13 Sasquatch672
    11 JS357
    7 SH76
    7 empovsun

    99 out of 300 threads were started by e ...[text shortened]... combined 76 threads, with 14 people starting only a single thread. For the record, I started 3.
    You lose.
  8. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    17 Nov '13 03:16
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    You lose.
    Well, if it isn't the forum parasite. Someone who never starts their own threads, but is quick to infest everyone else's.
  9. 17 Nov '13 03:32
    Originally posted by rwingett
    By my count, the last ten pages of threads (300 threads) were started by 45 different people. The top 11 thread generators (with the number of threads started) are as follows:

    48 Moon1969
    41 Whodey
    .
    I must create more!!
  10. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    17 Nov '13 04:37
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Well, if it isn't the forum parasite. Someone who never starts their own threads, but is quick to infest everyone else's.
    I'm the parasite? Guy, out of us two I'm the subscriber.
  11. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    17 Nov '13 08:18
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    I'm the parasite? Guy, out of us two I'm the subscriber.
    Hey, how is it Ming the Merciless has an avatar if he's not a subscriber?
  12. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    17 Nov '13 08:20
    Donation
  13. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    17 Nov '13 13:28 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    Hey, how is it Ming the Merciless has an avatar if he's not a subscriber?
    I'm an Original Pawn Star. Early in their history RHP sold lifetime memberships. I bought one. They soon discontinued that practice, but honored the ones they had sold. Thus I retain my avatar.

    They used to have a special star for 'Original Pawn Stars', but they seem to have discontinued that as well.
  14. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    19 Nov '13 09:02
    Originally posted by rwingett
    I'm an Original Pawn Star. Early in their history RHP sold lifetime memberships. I bought one. They soon discontinued that practice, but honored the ones they had sold. Thus I retain my avatar.

    They used to have a special star for 'Original Pawn Stars', but they seem to have discontinued that as well.
    no list like this would have been complete without the contributions of FMF. Where is he?
  15. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    19 Nov '13 15:14
    Originally posted by kmax87
    no list like this would have been complete without the contributions of FMF. Where is he?
    I think he was banned. I'm not sure for what, though.