BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters

Subject: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 07:32 PM

In an idle moment I found myself wondering whether Spaw, firing on four cylinders, would have any chance of catching up Joe Offer, perhaps even beating him to the 30,000 posts mark. Then I discovered that McGrath of Harlow is already way past 36,000 posts. Who else is in this league?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 07:36 PM

I have 33964...before this one...since Nov. 1996... and a few before I registered a simple name.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 07:38 PM

Gnu ain't far behind... and gaining

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 07:38 PM

29316...

Opps... Now 29317...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: bobad
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 07:41 PM

I know someone who has around 50,000 but I ain't sayin' who.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:22 PM

Not quite fair to list Joe Offer in there- a great many of his posts are in official response to other members. I have much less excuse...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:22 PM

Stand aside, folks. Amos has 62441.

SRS (who has only 30027)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: catspaw49
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:27 PM

I'm way behind anymore which is healthy. I'm worn out with every argument that goes on and could write them out playing all the characters so I can't see the point in even getting started. To wit, Bill D's excellent attempt at a reasonable gun discussion. Bill held up very well in the attempt and I had nothing much to add as the ever present degrading began. What would be the point?

Once in a great while I get involved but its pretty rare anymore. I may take another stab at Bill's idea but I doubt it.



Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: gnu
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:33 PM

I am? Oh, dear. Maybe I should assess this.

BTW... why would anyone care? Maybe I have much wisdom to afford to others? Or humour to impart in an attempt to entertain? as I have always aspired to as my goal? Or just a lot of tripe and lard?... as will be judged when I turn to clay. That is, if anyone can be arsed to read all of them. If so, I would pity the fool.

After all, yer only as good as yer last post and yer as bad as yer worst post ever forever. And I have had some worst ones. Apologized when I felt it was due. Said 'fuck you' when I didn't. But, in the end, I think I contributed more than I offended and, most times, those that I truly offended were meant to be offended. To those that I offended collaterally, grow a pair ya broke dicks... to borrow a phrase from one of my Mudcat heroes.

To wit, I would like to say that Spaw, on a tecnicality, is the all time, as Peter alluded to, profuscious (is that a word?) poster based on the fact that the lazy ass sum bitch keeps takin vacations in the in the big H so he don't have ta listen to us sorry asses.

Oh dear... I think I understand why I was mentioned... >;-) Someone shoulda mentioned it before.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:43 PM

Oh, I get it now...

Slacker Spawzer rather kick back with a cold Iron City and watch the Browns than hang here and put a few peas in the pot??? Un huh... So rather then fess up he just comes up with these "hospital stays" (wink, wink)...

Bad news for him... My Redskins are gonna put a whup on the Browns tomorrow...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 09:16 PM

That's embarrassing. Maybe I will try to cut down.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 09:22 PM

Maybe there's a 12-step program.
I'm surprised I'm just past 14,000. I think I developed a certain apathy as a self-defense mechanism.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 09:33 PM

Prior to this only 38,724.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: gnu
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 09:37 PM

Cut down? Hell NO, McGrath! POST man! Yer one of the peeps who has something of true value to impart even when I think it's shite. As Kendall says... I never learned anything from someone who agreed with me.

Odd, to a degree, innit? But very wise. The number of posts only counts in the wisdom, solace, humour... the humanity... of our interaction. One post in thousands may equal a thousand posts.

Gee... if I still smoked that there ganja, I'da had a braingasm right there. (Maybe that thought was a 30 year old "flashback"? I thought that stuff only stayed in yer system for about a month? Bobert?)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 09:39 PM

No fair counting those posts to MOAB..... (I can say that, 'cause I'm designated as 'reasonable' by 'spaw ☺)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: gnu
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 10:03 PM

My sympathies, Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 10:09 PM

Oh geeez, Bill! I'm so very sorry. Is there anything I can do to help?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:01 AM

Jeez!....look at all those lyrics..or music that could have been written....


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Amos
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:46 AM

Most o f mine could be considered lyrics and music in their own wordy right.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:28 AM

All of mine plumb the depths of human emotion, the human condition, the Eternal Questions, and are hence of immense, indeed irreparable, poetic value as both song and poesy.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:47 AM

A good friend of mine only has 4 entries but all of them of a high quality (ok.. saying nice things about my performances. ..) whereas most of my posts are rants raves and not very well thought through.

Joe Offer not only has a huge tally, but all are worth reading.

Quantity and quality. That's the key.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Bert
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 04:09 AM

Sheesh, I've only got 11,273, well now 4, I'm just a beginner.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:36 PM

Seems a lot of folks have a lot of spare time.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:10 PM

Although I've been sort of here since the fairly early years, I've only posted a few fewer than 13k posts, only three or four of which (as far as I can recall?) have been really embarrassing after I hit the Go Button prematurely.

I've been slowed a bit by puzzles like why the first post at mudcat is in thread number 4 - and a couple of other inscrutables. I've been wondering whether "thinking" (or at least trying to) is sort of a waste of time sometimes, but it's an old habit that's hard to break. With the help and fine example of some here I may be making some progress.

I must confess that I've posted a couple of times when later reflection indicated that I only pretended to be thinking before posting, but those posts seemed to have been generally accepted (or undetected) by the herd so I won't reveal which they were.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:23 PM

Ya' know John, someone has explained that a time or two but I still have no idea or just can't remember.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:52 PM

Because there was some sort of 'false start' where 1-2-3 got deleted, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 03:34 PM

Spaw -

Ya talkin' 'bout the thinkin' stuff, or just the thread number?

The semi-official explanation, given elsewhere maybe even by Max, was that there was a test setup to try out what worked, and the experiments were deleted when mudcat officially went on line. Seems reasonable enough, I guess.

Also commented when we were discussing the origins and such a while back, was that selecting "All" for how far to go back in the Refresh box doesn't really go all the way back. About the only way to find a very early post/thread is to search by thread number, and #4 is just the first one that gives a comeback - although the first post in it is dated (timestamped) earlier than any other single post we've found. (Several of us searched lots of the early possibles and compared notes in another one of those threads that's probably too old to find now(?))

I might still have a copy of the DT that I downloaded "before it was at mudcat" but didn't follow it to here until a couple of years after the 'cat came online. The original would have been on a floppy that I don't have a reader for, but if I copied it to a CD - and it survived - it could still be around. (Since it was old DOS, it might not even run in the newer Command Prompt versions, and the newer versions have it all.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Bat Goddess
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:48 PM

I didn't post (at least under the name Bat Goddess -- I think before that I was Linn the Thanatolithologist) until August 9, 1999.

Only 4739 posts counting that one (and not counting this one).

Linn

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Gervase
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 07:22 PM

...now, where was I? Fewer than 2500 posts since '99. Tsk. Must try harder!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 07:44 PM

I'd spend more time here myself, Gervase, if you posted more often.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 07:46 PM

What Spaw said... "I'm worn out with every argument that goes on (here) and could write them out playing all the characters so I can't see the point in even getting started."

That pretty well sums it up for me. ;-) As Bob Dylan once said, I'm "sick of all this repetition". There are so many typical arguing threads here that I look in on and say..."Naw...I'm not getting sucked into this one again."

Anyway, having accumulated about "a billion" posts here (which I more or less have) is nothing to be proud of, cos all it indicates is that the poster suffers from a debilitating behavioral addiction which he has not yet found the strength to break.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: fat B****rd
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 09:57 AM

4474 Good Lord !!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: artbrooks
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 10:08 AM

Alas - still 4 digits.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Stu
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 10:13 AM

Crikey. 2632 since October 2001. I've got some catching up to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 10:39 AM

But surely we have to take an average of #·of·posts ÷ times·as·a·poster ~~ or do I mean the opposite?

I mean, I have been posting for just 3 years and 4 months, and have posted 8034 times.

Anyone care to do the sum as to how that compares with, e.g. Keith, or gnu, or Spaw or ... ~~ taking into account how long they have each been at it?

☺〠☺~M~☺〠☺

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 11:45 AM

And, there are always the folks with the longest posts (which may in total add up to more bandwidth than those posting quite often) - that is if size matters ( I know, it matters to the few folks who actually read the "long 'n thick" ones?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 11:51 AM

Where is Little Hawk in this?

Number of posts is interesting, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Who posted the most text? JohnfromKansas, has got to be near the top of that list, he always makes long and detailed comments.

And MtheGM(who apparently thinks things thru before he posts) really has an important point.The ratio of posts to time is rather more reflective of activity.

Then there is the quality question. Who posted the most above the line?

And who posted the most relevant information? And it moves into darker territory--who posted the most offensive and confrontational material?

Inquiring minds, as ever, want to know;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Amos
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 02:52 PM

Most of the 62445 posts I have made are shorter. The fiction and lyrics contributions less so.

LH is certainly a candidate for most lines of text injected!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 03:45 PM

It it necessary to question whether this thread has examined what is really important about participation at mudcat.

Quite obviously, it is not what a person does within a community that really matters as much as the impact of that person on the group.

It has already been noted that the first (surviving) thread at mudcat was number 4, and there may be a few other "missing numbers" due to the rare necessity to "kill" a thread, but this thread is now number 148,631 and is a few days old. It seems reasonable to guess that there are at least 148,000 THREADS active and accessible at mudcat, and someone must have started EACH thread.

So WHO has started all those threads?

We have, in other threads, seen claims of records for "killing" threads, so shouldn't we know WHO has made the last post in threads continuously active since they were started. The possibility of "resurrections" of course means finding a way to credit the proper person when a thread comes back after being dormant more than 5 or 10 years.

Quite obviously, if we don't know who our "leaders" are, we're just a bunch of rabble with little direction or purpose, and might be mistaken for ordinary voters of lesser value than, for example, the politicians real people who know who's in charge.

I haven't found a simple way to find either of the above items of information within the public "face" of mudcat, but the question is of such importance that I will promise to "think about it" for a reasonable time (is 30 seconds enough?) sometime (could be never?) when (euphemism for if?) I should happen to get around to it.

A second question is whether we've looked at the correct information thus far in this thread. The last post here (by Amos when I started this) was message number 3,453,413 so the 62,445 posts he claims are a fairly significant 1.8082% of all posts so far, at least approximately, even if the total is a bit anemic for someone to claim being a real high achiever. Given the current political climate it would be easy to assume that we don't really like having the "one percenters" giving us advice but we need to know who they are before making judgements about whether ours are like the others that are discussed so much.

Can we do more?

John

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: gnu
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 10:36 PM

I think it would be me if I had hit the submit button as intended and those posts got posted but I suffer from a rare blood disorder imbalance that affects many who post the here Mudcat Café... it's know in the medical community as Bloodweiser Disease.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 10:50 PM

I have posted many times, but STARTED a relatively few threads. It 'feels' to me like a new thread may impose.. or at least affect and make inroads... on the time and attention of others, so I tend to ask myself if it will really amuse, inform or demand something important from folks, rather than just calling attention to ME. (Of course, I have had my weak moments)....and I admit that I am OFTEN susceptible to the posts of others, and add to the general blather.... but then I can sorta claim not to be responsible... ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 12:36 AM

it is necessary to point out that, brevity being what it is, some of the most notorious posters have done so but rarely. In the opposite realm, there have been posters who made hundreds of posting over a few days. Who knows what they would have been able to achieve, were it not for the "Deus ex machina".

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 12:30 AM

Good point. Let me krinkle my forehead and see if I can think of who you might be referring to . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat's heavy lifters
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 12:45 PM

Only 6259 since Nov 1st 2003.

I'd like to think I'm going for quality rather than quantity, but even I don't believe that.

Don T.