I'm not saying there should necessarily be a rule. My point is simply that some consideration of time should be placed into a landmark post.
quote:Landmark: An event marking a unique or important historical change or one on which important developments depend.
Landmark posts are, generally, based off of a user's post-count. It seems the general consensus is to post a landmark at 1000 posts. I think that simply doing it at 1000 may be, in some cases, unnecessary.
I think the best time for a landmark is when someone one day looks at their username and realizes that they've been on hatrack for a lot longer than they originally anticipated (and I'm talking years here) and they have posted a lot more than they ever thought they'd post. Another good time for a landmark is a major change in someone's life (going off to college, getting married, relocating to another state/country- something honestly significant.)
These days, a post-count of over 1000 is fairly common. A lot of this is due to fluff threads where little or no investment is made by the individual poster. Is reaching 1000 posts really a landmark in these cases?
If someone posts once every week or so, then 500 or even 250 is a significant and unique experience for the person involved. Therefore, a landmark post would certainly not be a suprise.
[warning! stream-of-consciousness to follow] I think the reason I say this is that I don't believe myself to be ready for a landmark anytime soon. I don't think I've really contributed much to the hatrackian scheme of things. I may have been funny every now and then and I may have even participated in a serious thread every now and then, but I don't think that anything I'd have to say at this point in my life is significant and I can't see how anyone who has been around here for mere weeks could possibly have anything important to say. Maybe this is a selfish and stupid way of measuring the "worth" of someone's landmark, but I'm just trying to explain my mindset as I write this post.
Posted by Julie (Member # 5580) on :
That in itself seems like it could be the basis of a landmark post. I think one reason it's good to post a landmark at 1000 is that by then people are kind of wondering, "Now who is this person? What's their story?" So it's kinda like an introduction/background. Plus they're fun to read. If you're not ready there's nothing that says you have to post a landmark.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
What if that person's 1000 posts are mostly confined to one or two threads?
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
I will henceforth post all landmarks in the 'Last Post' thread.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
I would generally hope that the opening post of a "landmark" thread is, itself, a landmark of sorts.
Then again, maybe I'm wrong - maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe the best landmark threads are the ones that say the most about a particular poster. *shrugs* Or maybe I just don't care that much Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
For my own posting, I feel much as you do. I don't begrudge other people their right to post a landmark whenever they want to, but if it's somebody I've never really encountered anywhere, there is a good chance I won't click on or post in their thread. And that's fine. Their landmark is for them and the people they have befriended. I like to read the landmarks to get more insight into the people I already know somewhat, to understand what makes them the way they are and to know them better.
I think 1,000 was a nice number, particularly for Papa Moose, because it used to take a while to hit 1,000. By the time you had hit 1,000, you had usually gotten to know a lot of people here and be known by a lot of people as well.
I am debating whether or not to post a second landmark at 5,000. If I do, I hope the "issues only" crowd won't hate me for it. But there are a lot of people who weren't here when I posted my first, and there is a lot to me that is not there. I didn't post at 2, 3, or 4 thousand, but now I am feeling once again that it might be appropriate.
So again, I think people should post whenever they feel like it--just don't feel bad if a lot of people don't post on it, or just post a .
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Holy crap! I have over 7,500 posts! Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I originally wanted to post a landmark for some relatively high prime number. But I realized the post numbers don't stay the same that they were at the time of posting (does that make sense?)
Anyway, I don't think what other people do for landmarks takes anything away from what I do, either in a landmark or otherwise.
Unless your comments were pointed at me. Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Primal Curve, is this your excuse why you are not posting a landmark post?
Kayla, you need to get a life.(Kidding, only kidding!)
**Ela** ~who has not posted any landmark posts Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Unless your comments were pointed at me.
Hardly, I have no idea who you are or how my posts would apply to you. Is this your typical attitude towards somewhat difficult subjects like the one I've picked to muse over? Is it automatically an insult if it may apply to you in some way? That's gotta be a fun way to go through life.
I'd read your 5000th landmark Icarus.
I almost did one at 1000 for this username. I started it, but quickly realized that I had nothing to say, so I decided against it. Also, I didn't have people climbing all over my back asking me to do one- which was kind of nice.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
He's not referring to you. He's just exploring the issue.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
eep. slow typist.
Thanks, PC.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Now I understand why some people can't stand emoticons, they don't understand them.
Though thinking everyone is talking about you is a symptom of anxiety disorder, which I do have. :End public service announcement/pharmeceutical ad:
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Or it could be a case of being self absorbed, which I happen to be. Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Now I understand why some people can't stand emoticons, they don't understand them.
I am well aware of what eye-rolling means.
quote:Unless your comments were pointed at me.
Look at your comment. I'm assuming, from your later post, that you meant this to indicate sarcasm, it doesn't. It indicates your contempt for someone who may refer to you in a post like mine.
Which of the two of us doesn't know how to use smileys?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
This was so much easier back in the days of ASCII.
In the old days, rolling your eyes meant mild contempt, and was an expression of amused bemusement. Sarcasm was expressed through the wink smiley.
I've posted one real landmark, and might do another one at 20,000.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Yeah, Tom. I miss those days past of shocking long-distance phone bills, 300-baud modems that you strap the handset of your phone onto and people who really knew how to make their point known. No one knows how to communicate better than computer geeks!
On another note...
quote:ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Interchange) is the most common format for text files in computers and on the Internet.
Yeah, I miss those days of text files too. <sighs>
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
If you get to 20,000.
Mwahahaha. Mwahahahahahaha. Mwahaha.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Heh, nice one, PC.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
But will I ever reach 1000? Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: I think one reason it's good to post a landmark at 1000 is that by then people are kind of wondering, "Now who is this person? What's their story?" So it's kinda like an introduction/background.
I agree with that. I just enjoy reading a person's landmark post thread that has contributed posts that have more to say than " " or " " or "(((insert person here)))" or "takes last post" posts.
Not that I'm not guilty of doing these things, but I only do that maybe 1/100 or less posts.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
*takes the bait*
Posted by BelladonnaOrchid (Member # 188) on :
I agree, PC. Hence the land-markedness of the post. I agree that it should mean something to the person that is posting, instead of being just another excuse to use a bright, colorful smiley (not that I have much against bright, colorful smileys-I just don't feel like making excuses to use them).
Personally, it will probably be an enormous landmark for me should I ever reach 1,000. I am calculating that at this rate, it will probably take me another 4 years. Much will have changed in four years, I hope.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
::makes note in PDA::
two . . . thousand . . . seven
Got it!
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:I just enjoy reading a person's landmark post thread that has contributed posts that have more to say than "[smiley I refuse to have appear in one of my posts]" or "[same with this one]" or "(((insert person here)))" or "takes last post" posts.
Isn't that my point? Shouldn't a landmark mean more than 1000 posts? Shouldn't it mean that you've really gone somewhere and have really changed through that experience? Isn't that what the first landmarkers were trying to convey?
It seems that, from what you've quoted, you agree that a landmark thread is a "get to know you" thread. I think I disagree with this sentiment. I think that a landmark thread is a "You know me, I know you... now, let me open my heart to you" thread. You should really know someone by 1000 posts- it's a freaking lot of posts! However, some people seem to get there and still remain relatively anonymous.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: It seems that, from what you've quoted, you agree that a landmark thread is a "get to know you" thread.
No, the quote actually said ONE reason why people do landmarks.... ect ect.
I never said that's the only reason, I just think that's why SOME people do them. I have 2000+ posts, I feel like I'm somewhat known around here. Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Yeah, you like Creed you big goob.
quote:No, the quote actually said ONE reason why people do landmarks
Okay, I understand what you're saying now. I still disagree with it. It may be a reason why someone may do it, but I don't know if it's a good reason.
If you've participated to a good and diverse degree, a good contingent of hatrack should know who you are, and using a landmark as a "get to know you" post would be redundant.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: I'm not saying there should necessarily be a rule.
We agree there.
The custom at Hatrack, as it was explained to me, is as follows: Some people post landmarks at 1000 and multiples of 1000, some people post at other arbitrary numbers (such as primes), some people post on a specific date. Some people do not post landmarks at all. Landmarks are so defined by the person posting them.
So you think 1000 posts is not sufficient reason to post a landmark? So don't post one then.
You think other people ought not be posting them after 1000 posts and a very short time period, during which they have not made themselves known to you?
Tough cookies. You don't get to make that decision. If you don't know who they are, and they are posting a landmark, feel free to ignore them.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
So this suddenly becomes an argument involving terse terminology and bold text?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Get Your Riot Gear: Something stirring in the air, a victory? A time-bomb ticking to explode, Something passive, something not. Billy clubs out, call the S.W.A.T. Rabid dogs without a leash, is this how you keep the peace? You want riots? Wear your riot gear. You want violence? Then shoot some tear gas in the air.
It is written on your badge, 'To serve and protect', it seemed you only served yourselves, protecting your own neck. Controlling with fear, menacing and threatening. You want my respect? You better start respecting me.
Go and get your riotgear, swing your girlie all around, we'll be dancing on the cinders, as the town is burning down. Swing her around, burn it all down.
Something smelled of power tripping, crowd control was rank. Tear gas everyone downtown, what you did really stank. Legislation, never made you judge and jury. Marshal law now, beat the kids down with no worries.
[ November 24, 2003, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Primal Curve ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Perhaps you'd prefer (((((PC)))))?
Nope, didn't think so. Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I think my ultimate goal with this thread is to just give people something to think about next time they think they should post a landmark.
It's almost getting to the point where people must feel a landmark is expected of them at 1000 (or multiples thereof.) It shouldn't be expected of anyone. All of my musing works the other way too. We, as a hatrack community, shouldn't expect landmarks of people just because they get to 1000. We should expect it of them when they find they have something to say.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I think what a lot of it is is that there's a whole subset community of hatrackers, much more pronounced than ever before in the days when people would complain about cliques in hatrack. Most of the old time hatrackers aren't part of this subset, so they just see people who they barely know posting. However, to the people making these landmarks hatrack is an entirely different place, that consists of their subset, that knows them very well.
Does that make sense.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I think I'm guilty of this. I've posted a landmark at each and every 1000 that I've reached. My first one was a decent landmark I think (I followed Papa Moose's example and just talked about me) and my last one I liked because it was about my Grandfather. I don't even remember what 3000 was but 2000 was an explenation of smilies, not really a landmark; anyways, I do think I've overused the landmarks. However, if someone wants to write a landmark and you think that they really haven't done anything that calls for one, then it seems fair to just think of it as any other thread. If people have something they want to say and they post it in a landmark thread then it seems like at the very least you can just discus it as any other issue.
I have no idea what I'll do with 5000. I was thinking about just leaving it alone but 5000 seems like a very round number that calls out for a landmark. Which I guess is what you're saying I shouldn't base it on so maybe I wont do anything. Maybe I'll just follow Icky's example for 5000.
Hobbes Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
'cept you'll get there first.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
blacwolve,
I think you're referring to the kind of people who spend a lot of time in one or two threads and don't show up elsewhere. I'm sure I'd be more inclined to read and appreciate their landmark threads if they didn't do this. I think I'd be happier if they gave more to the community than a thousand posts of nothing in a thread I don't read because it contains exactly that.
[edit to make clear who and what I am referring to]
[ November 24, 2003, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: Primal Curve ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
That's why I created Whily Shmily Tiger.
Hobbes Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Hobbes, I'd read your 5000th landmark.
The number thing is fine to me- if it's just a good way of timing when to post your landmark. I also see no problem posting a landmark at 5214 either. I just don't think it should be the only reason you do a landmark.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
But they are part of a community, it just happens to be a subcommunity that most of the "old" hatrackers aren't part of.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I guess, then, if I were in their shoes, I'd post my landmark within that thread I spend so much of my time in.
It makes sense (at least, to me ) that my landmarks (if I am ever to make any) aren't posted on the main page of hatrack.com or in any other forum other than the landmark archive and BFFAC because it doesn't apply to anyone there. Why should the landmarks of people who only hang out in one thread show up on the main forum topic listing?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
That's like saying that the people who only post in serious threads should post their landmarks in those thread, or the people who only post in fluffy threads should post their landmark in one of them. It's really the same situation, and the people you're refering to do post in more than one or two threads, they have a whole genre of threads to themselves. The only difference between them and the fluffy/serious posters is that there has always been a huge amount of overlap between the fluffy and serious threads, while there's really very little overlap between the people you're complaining about and the rest of hatrack.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ah, the elitism again.
Hatrack -- or more specifically, this forum -- is a different place for each person. That's a good thing, IMO. I'm very glad there isn't some arbitrary list of requirements to be considered a full-fledged member.
So there are some threads that are analogous to a "kiddie table," if you will. When people who mostly post there venture out into the deeper waters of Hatrack, is it really necessary to chomp off their heads, sending them scurrying back whence they came? Really?
How about either nurturing them, in the hope that they may someday become what you consider "worthy" members of Hatrack? Or if you cannot/will not do that, simply ignore them?
As was pointed out, we're not on 300 baud modems. It costs you so little to let them feel welcome -- or at least not feel UNwelcome.
Is your convenience (and honestly, it's not like checking out the second page is SO hard to do) really worth more than other people's feelings?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
As far as I know, there are no serious threads with over 30 pages of posts.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
*muses* Some of the homosexuality threads? Though I guess it's debatable whether those really qualify as 'serious.'
Rivka- are you talking to me? I don't really see how anything I've said has been unwelcoming.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
No, blacwolve, not at all! I think you and I were responding to the same person, actually. Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
I think Blackwolve kinda has the right of it. But its less that its "old" Jatraqueros who don't know this "subset" and more that the "subset" don't know the rest of the community. I think we are talking about the younguns who aren't really interested in anything except making friends, joking around and playing games in the game threads. *shrug*
Who cares? I always just look at the thread title and, if I don't recognise the name, I don't bother to read.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Primal, do you realise that to some people, this forum is just a forum, and a landmark post is just a post?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Primal, do you realise that to some people, this forum is just a forum, and a landmark post is just a post?
Then why feel the need to point this out? If you think, and I'm assuming this is you, that this is just a forum, then why should you care what I think? After all, it's just a post and doesn't mean anything beyond that.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Primal Curve:
quote:Then why feel the need to point this out?
Because I've got this irrational compulsion to challenge people who spout shit.
quote:If you think, and I'm assuming this is you, that this is just a forum, then why should you care what I think?
I don't care what you think. I care what you say.
quote:After all, it's just a post and doesn't mean anything beyond that.
Certainly, for me it has no meaning beyond that. That does not mean it has no meaning.
My point is, some people take this more seriously than others. It's pretty ridiculous for you to suggest that there needs to be some sort of standard of meaningfulness achieved before someone ought to post a landmark thread. It's just a thread, man. It's someone saying, "Look, I've got N posts; isn't that cool? Let me tell you something else. . . ." If the person and the thread don't mean anything to you, so what? Odds are there are half a dozen other trheads on page one at that very moment that don't interest you.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You know, there were thousandth post threads before Moose posted his. They consisted mostly of role-playing and smilies. I remember.
So if someone posts one of these, fine. I just reckon it's not part of the Moose-landmark-genre, just the simpler party-thread-genre.
And if I know the person, I post "Yay" and an emoticon or whatever. And if I can't motivate myself to bother, I don't.
But it's all good. Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Edit: I'll delete this if you want me to.
Lalo:
quote:It seems to degrade the tradition. Rather like it would ruin the spirit of christening to run around splashing holy water on each other and shrieking how Christ just saved you.
A ritual has exactly as much meaning as you inject into it. If you let other people's actions degrade a ritual in your eyes, that is your problem and not theirs.
For that matter, I'd question your reasons for investing that meaning in it in the first place. But that's a topic for another day.
quote:What valuable contribution has been made to Hatrack by endless threads of emoticons or (((hugs)))?
It appears that they've given a fair bit of satisfaction to the people who post on them.
quote:Somehow, I'm stuck in the method of thinking that in terms of Hatrack, one Moose is worth two thousand emoticon-users.
Well sure. In terms of contributions to Hatrack, he's probably worth a couple thousand of me if it comes to that. Am I to wait till my 2000000th post to make a landmark thread? (Assuming, of course, that I were interested in making a landmark thread.)
[ November 24, 2003, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: ae ]
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
When I realized that I was approaching two landmarks (for me, that is - four years, 1000 posts), I was apprehensive. I had been around for four years! Four! I'd seen the tides of Hatrack change immensly, I'd been around for a lot of the big events that people now invoke in a legendary sense, and I didn't know too many of this so-called "subset community." I may or may not have contributed a lot to the Hatrack community in general. I don't really know. But I put up a landmark anyway. I wanted to let people know that I existed, that I was special, and that something important was happening to/for me. That being, of course, an extended duration here. Since I put my landmark thread up, I've begun reading some of the new ones, and sometimes I agree with Lalo: sometimes it does seem to degrade the [Moose-]tradition.
I don't know what the answer to this is or if there even is an answer. I am, however, firmly in the same routine as EG: If I don't recognize the name, I don't read the thread. Maybe that is an answer. Maybe there are other, better ones. But that's the one that works best for me. Is it "elitism"? I'm not sure about that. I suppose I'm not taking the time to get to know this "subset." We just might not have the same interests (ie, I've never even been in the last post thread... any of the various incarnations of them... ::shudder:: ) and that's why I don't recognize the names. But that's alright. That's what makes a community. If everyone knows everyone else, where on earth do threads like this come from? Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:It's pretty ridiculous for you to suggest that there needs to be some sort of standard of meaningfulness achieved before someone ought to post a landmark thread.
As I've already stated. I believe the ultimate goal of this thread is not to deter people from making landmark posts if they don't live up to my personal expectations, but to give them something to think about when they decide they want to.
It seems like you only read my first post and reacted from there. Did you read anything inbetween?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't see not reading landmark threads that don't interest you as elitist. (Well, unless your stick your nose in the air and proclaim, "I'm surely not reading anything posted by that buffoon!" ) Choosing to skip any thread that doesn't interest you is only reasonable.
It's the "those people don't have a right to post landmark threads where DECENT Hatrackers have to see them" attitude that I see as elitist.
I find it very ironic -- and extremely troubling -- that some of the loudest proponents of this sort of view are ordinarily loudly against discrimination.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:A ritual has exactly as much meaning as you inject into it. If you let other people's actions degrade a ritual in your eyes, that is your problem and not theirs.
For that matter, I'd question your reasons for investing that meaning in it in the first place. But that's a topic for another day.
No? Then you don't believe that, say, lighting a menorah every day of the year subtracts from its importance during the Hannukah season?
While landmark threads are by no stretch of the imagination a religious ceremony, they did have a touch of the deeply personal that I enjoyed. Now that they're a fad among teenyboppers and the teenybopper-minded, it's rather depressing to open a landmark thread knowing your hopes will be dashed.
I'm not suggesting we put in any kind of law declaring that landmark posts must be this important and this personal, but it'd be nice if everyone knew -- as they apparently don't -- that landmark threads were meant to serve as landmarks.
quote:It appears that they've given a fair bit of satisfaction to the people who post on them.
Heh. So they have. Though, if I may suggest it, people who are so easily satisfied by their ability to post pretty colored circles would likely be easily entertained by most shiny or brightly colored objects. No need to litter a forum with idiocy.
But then, I've more or less promised I'd retire from this argument. While the board's growing more idiot-friendly, I'll just look for meaningful threads amongst the crap. Rather like trying to find truth among the stories at Fox News.
quote:Well sure. In terms of contributions to Hatrack, he's probably worth a couple thousand of me if it comes to that. Am I to wait till my 2000000th post to make a landmark thread? (Assuming, of course, that I were interested in making a landmark thread.)
Let's not go fishing for compliments. You know damn well -- or should, at any rate -- that I'm a big fan of your existence. You were right, this Delgados CD isn't bad. In the last book thread I made, based on your suggestion I now have two "steampunk" books sitting in my apartment that I haven't yet been able to dive into. Hell, your recommendations aside, it's always been a pleasure to read your opinion. You're an intellectual, Nick, and it's an honor to know you to whatever extent you express yourself on Hatrack.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
*shrugs*
PC, you just suffer from a slightly midler version of the Leto-Lalo Syndrome - you often sound caustic without intending to actually attack people.
I agree with you that I'd like to see people think more about posting landmark threads and maybe this thread will have done it. If not, live and let live, huh?
As someone who posts rather irregularly throughout any given week, I often have to go searching on page two for something I was discussing 4 or 5 days before. It's not that hard, really.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Funny thing is, Eddie, you're so desparate to find intellectuals around here... But you're not one yourself. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Of course not. That's why I'm looking for intelligent discussion -- I hope to get learning smarts through osmosis.
Unfortunately, all I've been reading lately are your posts. Hence the decline in quality.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
PC- I was meaning to convey mild exasperation with the eye rolling and not sarcasm. Though I wouldn't go so far as contempt. It didn't quite call for the wallbash either. I was trying to convey that I found your comments (about some fictional person's landmark) a wee bit mean spirited.
If it conveys contempt, I say we draw and quarter the thing. I guess the monkeys might have been good.
I really avoided smileys before it became a matter of exercising my free speech.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Boo-ya-kasha!
Glad to hear it though - it does show that I've finally managed to talk at your level. It was a long way down but I got there.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
That's what you call a burn? Pff. And once more you prove that Australia was formed by the rejects of, heh, England. You know your ancestors were pretty low on the food chain for that status.
Go back to school, Kangaroo Jack. Catch an alligator or something.
That's right. I went there, girlfriend. What you gonna do? Throw a boomerang at me? Eh? Eh?
Eh?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Okay, I'm probably gonna end up editing that one. But jesus, EG, you gotta give me some material to work with. Your "zinger" didn't even make sense in response to what I said. We get it, you march to your own drummer, but that's pathetic.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Okay, I understand what you're saying now. I still disagree with it. It may be a reason why someone may do it, but I don't know if it's a good reason.
Of course it isn't. What exactly, do you disagree with? That people use landmarks to introduce themselves? They obviously do. I don't think it's a bad reason, but I wouldn't write one for that.
[ November 25, 2003, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
The fact that you didn't get it is precisely the point, Lalo. Sheesh.
I'd be happy to give you an alligator or a kangaroo but man, that stuff you do with them - you know that's illegal, right?
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: No need to litter a forum with idiocy.
Right, like that's not hypocritical.
Intellectuals can be idiotic for fun, but can idiots like you be intellectual? We all you know you try Lalo. Keep at it. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:ntellectuals can be idiotic for fun, but can idiots like you be intellectual? We all you know you try Lalo. Keep at it.
Gosh, Nick. Thanks for the encouragement. Someday, I know if I just keep trying, I could end up espousing wisdom as easily as you do!
Golly, I'm so glad you were here to coach me. Whatever would I do without your invaluable advice...
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
No problem!
(btw the " " meant sarcasm, so don't take offense okay? )
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
WARNING! WARNING!
This thread's sarcasm quotient is reaching critical levels.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
And hey, hey, EG, let's not go into the "legality" of things, okay? I'm just saying God gave kangaroos those pouches for a reason.
But alligators, damn. What do you people DO over in Australia? Are your lil' Aussies so short you're confident about dangling them around alligators? What, the lil' boomerangs fit between the teeth?
I gotta say, it's getting easier and easier to believe you're descended from a reject of England.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Intellectuals can be idiotic for fun, but can idiots like you be intellectual? We all you know you try Lalo. Keep at it.
- - - - - - - - - -
(btw the " " meant sarcasm, so don't take offense okay? )
Ha ha! Gosh, you're funny! Silly me, how could I possibly take offense at a charge of stupidity from you?
Ha ha ha! That was sure a swell joke, Nick!
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Uh oh Lalo, we're both on the road to idiocy, after all, we both just posted posts with nothing but smilies. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Gosh, Nick, my mistake. I thought I was already there.
Goodness, I hope I'm not making you an idiot through emoticons. I know you wanted to do it all by yourself.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
No, I was just trying to be ironic: Linkage Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
The thing is, landmark threads are now archived. So, are there any unwritten rules deciding which threads are to be archived, and which are not? I mean, is there a point in archiving a landmark thread consisting mostly of party-ing and role playing?
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Good heavens, I really must check Hatrack more often. My name has been invoked in this thread many times by many people, and though it appears at least one of the posts has been deleted (though quoted), I think I got complimented a couple times. Compliments for Moose -- there really should be a separate archive for those.
Anyway, I've been of at least two (usually more) minds on the landmark thread issue, and as I recall there have been a couple of threads about it in the past. I'm not gonna search them out, because I may not think the same thing now that I did then anyway.
I thought my first landmark was pretty good. I felt better having written it, and others felt better having read it. A bunch of good ones by several other folks followed it. Then some seemed more a "No, really, I am part of this community, see?" And then people started "following the tradition," but didn't really know what the tradition was because they weren't there when it started, and things continued to metamorphose, and at an even faster rate.
They've been all over the field since then. Some have been newsy at best, and some evoke powerful emotions, at least for me. My judgement of them is certain to be subjective, as is everyone else's, so I'm not declaring anything here other than my opinions -- opinions with which nobody is forced to agree.
When Mrs. Card first contacted me and Strider about archiving the landmark threads, some of the things she said:
quote:I love them too and I think they are a vital part of what makes Hatrack a good community.
But, landmark threads are something special. We loved it when Pop started them and are pleased that they have been embraced.
. . . [the thread] could be saved and read and be a wonderful place for new Hatrack members to get to know old ones.
Part of my reply:
quote:I guess my concern (well, not my concern, but what I can see as a possible concern others may have) is what constitutes a landmark. I've been adding pretty much whatever people call a landmark, even though some of them are not personal histories of any sort. However, I suppose there are few enough of those that erring on the "keep it" side shouldn't make much of a difference.
And her response to that:
quote:What constitutes a landmark thread is tricky -- but I'm with you that I'd rather err on the side of caution. I don't want to set some certain "standard" that doesn't allow for others' creativity and desires. If somebody says it's their landmark thead -- then it is!
I still feel that way. If a person defines his or her post as a landmark, then I'm gonna add it to my list and later to the archive. I've asked a couple times, since although the word "landmark" was in the title, there wasn't really anything landmarky about them. And until Kristine changes her mind about what constitutes a landmark thread, I won't be changing my process.
But I understand and empathize with PC's original comments, as well as various opinions scattered throughout this thread. In trying to decipher my own feelings, I've come to a couple conclusions.
One, that pride thing again -- too many landmarks in the archive and mine gets lost in the shuffle. I can't bump it any more. I can take solace in the fact that it's thread #000001 in the archive, but to whom will that matter? And because they're stored by last post on the thread, I'm not at the end of the archive, either -- just stuck in the middle. Pretty soon it won't even be on the first page, and my only hope will be the monthly revival of the list thread I keep updating.
Two, someone could come to Hatrack out of nowhere, and decide to read some landmarks. Whose would they read, and more importantly, what would that tell them about Hatrack? I don't want it to be that we're a pack of star-farmers. (Learned that term from someone here... for those who don't know, there are apparently places out there where increased post count results in more stars by one's name, thus people post for the sole purpose of gaining stars. The concept was mentioned in this thread, but not the term.)
One of the most honoring things ever said to me was in relation the landmark phenomenon. I received an e-mail from another Jatraquero talking about a landmark post, in which I was told:
quote:That elusive sense of community that I think we succeed in having rests on the presence of a few very special people, and you're definitely one of them. It doesn't even seem like you need to try; you just casually build community as you go.
Yes, I'm boasting in even mentioning it. But my hope is that landmarks will help bring about that elusive sense of community, and that the landmarks can serve as some of the building blocks of that community. And I plan to remain a member of this community, landmarks or no, smilies or no, fluff or no.
And I'll try not to get all crotchety as I get older.
--Pop
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I totally agree with you, Pop. I'd never posted at a forum before this one, but I've seen others. They scare me.
I realize that it's "just a forum", but I'd like for it to be more of a community. I know I see it as one. I like that by the time we decide to meet each other in person, we don't even think twice.
I think that the ones who are irritated by recent issues are the ones who see it as a community...and get offended by those treating it as "just a forum". But I think that as long as we're just a forum, and not any sort of democracy with any rules, it's something we have to deal with.
I think the "community" crowd will still be here when the "just a forum" crowd is bored and gone.
As far as a solution to the archiving of the landmark posts goes, I'd be for some sort of waiting period to have your thread archived. I think that if you can't stick around for six months after you post it, you probably don't care whether or not it is.
And is date-of-last-post the only way to sort them?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Frisco, I couldn't have put my personal feelings about Papa's post better.
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
Notice in my landmark thread that I DID admit I was mostly a fluff poster. Yet people are still complaining that I posted a landmark.
I feel I owe an explaination as to why I avoid the serious discussions. I don't feel like I know myself, what I believe, or what I think well enough to debate it yet with other people. I am also a very shy person, and I don't feel confident enough to discuss things with people. I have gotten much more comfortable around here because I posted on fluff threads. I have posted on serious discussion threads, and will will post on more as I get used to being here. When I DO post in discussions, I am serious about it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Eruve, this isn't really about you anymore specifically, and more of a general debate about when people should post landmarks. So don't feel like you have to defend yourself, because it's OK for people to have different opinions.
And I think you're great.
By the way, though, it is not necessary to debate in the "serious" threads. You can also ask questions. In this case, the threads would even be serving a purpose, because they would be helping you to hone your own opinions and examine issues you might not have examined before. And somebody coming into one of those threads who does not already feel like the have the corner on Truth, who is open and trying to learn and understand more, would be a breath of fresh air.
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
Thank you, Icarus. I feel better now.
Don't get me wrong. I at least read some of the serious threads, even if I don't post there. And I didn't neccesarily mean "debate", I think I used the wrong word. More like "discuss". And I still feel akward posting in the serious threads. Partly because I have a hard time explaining what I mean.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
There are a lot of threads that fall in-between "fluff" and "serious discussion". Probably about 90% of them. Just step in and talk. Unless it's an abortion, homosexuality, NAMBLA, or PC/Apple debate, nobody's going to bite your head off.
Except Leto. He has a medical condition that requires him to ingest a certain number of heads each month.
That said, I think a lot of people are just irritated because landmark posts have recently become a big part of the community. People post long threads telling about their lives and who they are (or, in my case, something definitive of who they are). I mean, we have separate threads asking why we came to Hatrack, and a separate thread for hugs. Landmarks have become something beyond an introduction thread. Mind you, we have those, too.
No doubt that there a dozen threads on the first page that say less and deserve less attention than yours does, but the term "Landmark" is something we hold high standards for, and we try to keep the term from being tossed around...usually by bitching.
It's what we do best. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Hey, a lot of us have trouble posting in serious threads. For my part, I've been here long enough to know which posters have the same views as I do. Without fail I can count on these posters to come in and say what I think far better than I ever could. I pretty much limit myself to asking questions or telling people to cool off. Every forum needs a self-appointed voice of reason Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Pop,
You do casually build community. It's wonderful, and needed, and we are all richer for it.
---
I don't know about landmarks. I think I am approaching something HUGE - and I promised to post a landmark, but I just don't know that I can.
The biggest problem: To be signifigant, it needs to be about things that have affected me strongly. If I'm not over it, it's too painful to talk about. If I am, then it's over and done with and I don't want to beat a dead horse. If it's good, it's too good to share.
I have had one inadvertant landmark post, and I suppose a real one could discuss that event and what happened to/by as a result, but I can't yet. Considering privacy issues, I'm not sure I ever could.
I talk about myself so much in general that I hardly need to create a thread devoted especially to it. I'd do the "compliments to everyone" thread, but I'm deathly afraid I would miss somebody.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Just so long as you don't miss me.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
honestly, pops, i was suprised to see mine in the archieve. it doesn't need to be.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I agree with pretty much everything Papa Moose says. Ever. Even if he's wrong--I figure the odds are with me. In fact, I wish I could be more like him.
casually building community . . . wow! Whoever wrote that sure can turn a pretty phrase! Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I have nothing to add to this discussion except that you will never see a landmark from me.
But the main reason I am posting is to say thanks to pc for posting lyrics to a great song back on page one of this thread.
Always good to see other people are fif fans, or at least know who they are.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Eruve, I hope you know my post wasn't directed at you. I had read your landmark, and added it to my list, but I didn't keep reading all the replies (my time is limited lately, as I've explained a couple of places), so I didn't realize you thought people were talking about you specifically. I wasn't. I'm talking about things that happened last year -- that's right, I'm one of those crotchety oldbies. I specifically left off names because as I said above, each person needs to (and will) come to his/her own conclusion.
Anyway, I stand by my statement that it is up to the person posting to determine how and when (if ever) to write a landmark. I was just expressing my vision, and leaving it up to others whether or not that vision was worth pursuing.
--Pop
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
AR, Suckerpunch is my personal anthem.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Well, there's a lot I could say, but let me just focus on what I think is the crux of the matter:
quote:Let's not go fishing for compliments. You know damn well -- or should, at any rate -- that I'm a big fan of your existence. You were right, this Delgados CD isn't bad. In the last book thread I made, based on your suggestion I now have two "steampunk" books sitting in my apartment that I haven't yet been able to dive into. Hell, your recommendations aside, it's always been a pleasure to read your opinion. You're an intellectual, Nick, and it's an honor to know you to whatever extent you express yourself on Hatrack.
I don't know if you were serious about the fishing for compliments thing, but either way: see, the thing is, I'm not aware of any of this. I do take notice of a few people who strike me as being particularly admirable (intellectually, ethically, etc.), and of course a few who strike me as being particularly contempible, but I don't generally notice what other people think of me, because I don't really think of this is as a community.
To me, this is "just" a forum, by which I mean that it's a place where I can put forth my opinions, read other people's, and discuss the lot of them. It has no meaning for me beyond that, but it does have meaning in and of itself, particularly because of the intelligence and thought that goes into some—not all or most, but a significant enough proportion—of those posts. That's a valuable, worthwhile thing.
Full disclosure: this is far from the only forum I go to, and there is one which is, to me, more than "just" a forum. I know the people there, I've talked to them extensively on AIM, and I do care about them beyond what they post on threads. Still, there are some people on that forum who aren't integrated to that extent, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's fine. We don't really have any traditions there, but if we did, I wouldn't mind if people chose to use that tradition without being as involved as the people who started it. It doesn't hurt anybody, and to suggest that it does and that people shouldn't do it (yes, I realsie no one's trying to make it a law, but is is a recommendation) unless they're as fanatical about the forum as the leading lights are is simply rude to the people who post casually and are perfectly content with that, but wish to use that tradition for their own innocuous purposes.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
A bit of advice... If I don't know you yet, I normally don't read your landmark post. I suspect others do the same. Hence, it's probably a waste of time to write one too soon after joining Hatrack just because you want to do one.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Well, this thread at least got me off of my electronic butt and I started writing my landmark that I've had an idea of doing for a while in Word. It's about a particular off-beat subject which I am going to explore in depth. So I'll probably end up with a couple rewrites and I have no idea when I'll finish it.
But at least this discussion has inspired me slightly.
AJ
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Let's not go fishing for compliments. You know damn well -- or should, at any rate -- that I'm a big fan of your existence. You were right, this Delgados CD isn't bad. In the last book thread I made, based on your suggestion I now have two "steampunk" books sitting in my apartment that I haven't yet been able to dive into. Hell, your recommendations aside, it's always been a pleasure to read your opinion. You're an intellectual, Nick, and it's an honor to know you to whatever extent you express yourself on Hatrack.
Who was this addressed too? Were there posts deleted? Is there another Nick? I'm horribly confused.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Oh, Hi Nick. Now I get it. Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Huh, I gave a crap at one time. Interesting.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Now you have a kid, so you collect it instead?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not really, to be honest.... Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Yes, and I'm using it in my special taco recipe.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And you just joined mph on the NEVER-cooking-for-me list.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Do we need to ask if that's kosher?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Hey, I don't mix dairy with my secret meaty sauce.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
This is a good thread. This is the kind of thread that drew me in when I first started lurking here. The sense that this is a community and not just any other forum attracted me. I didn't realize how much of that has been lost until I read this thread.
Or maybe it hasn't been lost, maybe I just don't notice it as much anymore.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
Sorry to bring the thread back on topic, but my landmarks have always been when I've actually had something to say. My first was when I was talking about being far away from my home, and planning on going back, and that it was going to be a life-changing experience for me. I skipped 2000, I had nothing to say. 3000 was the results of having come back, and how it really did change my life. 4000 was about my cousin's death. And 5000 was my sister's birthday, and my reflecting on how fast she grew up, and how I was not ready for it to be her bat mitzvah yet.
I agree with you, PC, that landmarks should be something real, and not just "1000 posts!! Wooohooo!" I think you have a definite point. And I generally respect landmarks of the monumental kind a lot more, and their posters as well. Though not as a rule, I guess.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Well, I wrote this thread during the big landmark fad. Not that landmarks aren't important, but a lot of people were posting landmarks all the time. Quantity was job one (to make another FIF reference).
If anything, the fact that this is really no longer the case, one could say an improvement in the "community" as a whole has been achieved. I think the hatrack that we see now has a different set of problems. I would say that, rather than fluff being a huge distraction for hatrack, ego is now the reigning power and the "cause of all our problems."
Whatever that means.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
Everyone has problems, whether or not they admit it.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
" or "(((insert person here)))" or "takes last post" posts.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)