Well, I've never counted it all up, and I doubt if whoever it was who said that 99 per cent of their posts were "ignored" has counted them either. I take it the 99% isn't a statistic, it's a rhetorical flourish meaning a large majority.

And in that case, that goes for the rest of us too - most of the time when you post you don't expect or get any kind of direct response. Maybe some point you raise might be developed by someone else, but there's not going to be a direct attribution most of the time. Why should there be? There isn't in a crowded conversation.

I suppose that if you say something that annoys somebody they are more likely to specifically mention you, and that goes a long way to explain the practice of trolling. (I distinguish between saying something you believe to be true and relevant, in spite of the likelihood that it will annoy someone, and saying something that you don't particularly believe is true or relevant, for the sake of annoying someone.

Any in any case, how can anyone tell whether they are being ignored or not? Most of the people around here at any time are quite likely reading without posting (I don't like the term lurking much). There might have been lots of people avidly reading thingy's posts and looking forward eagerly to them. Nobody can look forward eagerly to reading a post by GUEST(non-label) because there's no reason to think it's the same one next time you see it at the head of a post.

Which is a pity because there appears to be at least one GUEST(non label) who deserves not to be confused with some of the other extremely nasty little creatures who use the same sobriquet. Deserves not to be, but evidently wishes to be, which I find puzzling. A bit like going around in a white sheet because you like privacy, in a place where there is a Klan presence. Which would be a sure way of ensuring confusion and unpleasantness all round.