|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Redfield /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1678362291 Message started by pg on 03/09/23 at 03:44:51 |
|
Title: Redfield Post by pg on 03/09/23 at 03:44:51 [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47KkfmI8r7c[/media] Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Redfield Post by J Mac on 03/10/23 at 07:22:26 Crickets. What does he know anyway? Don't you know that late night hosts, Howard Stern, Target clerks, and various governors know much, much more? <Sarcasm intended> |
|
Title: Re: Redfield Post by Eegore on 03/10/23 at 07:31:53 Crickets. What does he know anyway? What's your accepted timeframe for people to read and respond to a post? |
|
Title: Re: Redfield Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/10/23 at 09:56:23 6F4F4D45584F2A0 wrote:
Why so combative? Why do you stress if you Think someone else is? That's a recurring issue with you. Why is it Your job to tell someone else when they can point out a hot topic is without comment? |
|
Title: Re: Redfield Post by Eegore on 03/10/23 at 12:19:01 I'm asking what his acceptable timeframe is for people to read and respond to a post. How is that combative? He can be offended, or think about it and toss out a number, or ignore it. "Why is it Your job to tell someone else when they can point out a hot topic is without comment?" I've tried for years to show you that views are not unique, the view counter is not accurate, often times due to scanning software, sometimes from me. I understand you choose to get upset about it and repeat the cycle, but that won't change the math. If forum members would offer a number, like 12 hours, I will set any scanning software to have a 12 hour interval, and make sure to make count-up post when I manually look at a post but need time to do research and respond. I always read a post at least twice before committing research time to it. You want more accurate view counts? (external bots and editing of current posts will still artificially alter the count) then stop complaining and answer a simple question from time to time. This whole "Kiss it,dude,,I don't care what you say any more." response just keeps you angry over events that never even happened. |
|
Title: Re: Redfield Post by J Mac on 03/10/23 at 12:42:13 I was thinking at a higher level than just this forum. I wonder how much coverage and attention this will get. I have no expectation of responses. People will respond to what interests them. 725250584552370 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Redfield Post by Eegore on 03/10/23 at 12:44:12 I was thinking at a higher level than just this forum. I wonder how much coverage and attention this will get. Ok that makes sense, thank you for the clarification. I imagine an investment tracker would do a decent job calculating response probabilities. |
|
Title: Re: Redfield Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/10/23 at 15:40:41 4060626A7760050 wrote:
I Love it! You couldn't be more wrong. You were chewing on him,,now act like it was me,, Who GIVES A SCHITT about a counter? Why do you care that he said Crickets? Why do YOU need to fix it? |
|
Title: Re: Redfield Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/10/23 at 17:13:28 https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/dr-redfields-bombshell-testimony He straight up blames fauci |
|
Title: Re: Redfield Post by Eegore on 03/10/23 at 20:48:56 I Love it! You couldn't be more wrong. You were chewing on him,,now act like it was me, I never said you were chewing on anyone. You are upset over events that never happened, then more upset at me for trying to inform you. , Who GIVES A SCHITT about a counter? You. When you address people on here for reading your post and not answering it that indicates You care, or you wouldn't bring it up. I keep trying to show you that the views you see are not multiple people, often times its robots, or me. If you don't care why do you bring it up? When you call people "gutless" for not replying to your questions, I interpret that as caring that people reply to you. The only issue is you defend your statements by claiming, inaccurately, that multiple forum members read your post. This is not true. "Why do you care that he said Crickets?" I already answered that. If members state they would like to see replies within let's say a 10 hour period, I can set my software to a 10 hour interval. I will also, as courtesy, indicate every time I re-read a post so they have a more accurate assessment of how many people read their post and did not reply. It wont ever be fully accurate because of other software out there. Here's a question: Why do you care that I asked? "Why do YOU need to fix it?" There's nothing to fix. When you claim, inaccurately, that 6 people read your post, and I know I read it 3 times and my software ran it 3 times, I will tell you, again, that the views are not unique. 6 different members did not read your post. Only I did. If this angers you it is unfortunate, but I see no reason to avoid letting members know that view counts on this forum are NOT unique, many views are bots, or me. |
|
Title: Re: Redfield Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/10/23 at 22:38:15 Duude,, just stop. You barked at a guy, Not Me, for typing Crikkits,, Nobody Needs you telling them that they should not have expected a response yet. Nobody Needs you to coordinate this place. We don't need you setting a timer. We survived without a hall monitor for years. |
|
Title: Re: Redfield Post by Eegore on 03/10/23 at 23:30:16 "Duude,, just stop. You barked at a guy, Not Me, for typing Crikkits,," I asked a question, he answered, we had an adult exchange of information. The only person upset here is you. "Nobody Needs you telling them that they should not have expected a response yet." I never said that, you are making that up. I am saying when you complain that 6 different people read your post, it often times is me. All 6 views are mine. If it angers you that I want to inform people that this happens, that is unfortunate for you. I am just letting you know, again, you get angry about an event that never happened. "Nobody Needs you to coordinate this place." I am not coordinating anything here. I am informing you that your belief that every view is a different person is wrong. Views are not unique. "We don't need you setting a timer." I am asking so people can have a more accurate assessment of unique views, if me setting a timer on my software angers you, that is unfortunate. If people are going to be insulted for not replying to posts, wouldn't it be better to know if one member was responsible for 12 of those "views"? What value is it to be angry over an event that never happened? |
|
Title: Re: Redfield Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/11/23 at 06:03:39 1C3C3E362B3C590 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Redfield Post by MnSpring on 03/11/23 at 07:16:50 1A3A38302D3A5F0 wrote:
Incorrect. When JOG posts something, that no one has a counter to. It is an affirmation that he is RIGHT. It is proof that the UL, DFI, FDS, Socialists, Agree That the posting is RIGHT. No Comment, is CRICKETS, Just another slam on the UL DFI FDS Socialists, Because by lack of comments, they know the statements are RIGHT. If not, A ‘champion’ would be spinning/deflecting/defending/countering it, A ‘down under’ would be spouting nonsense, A ‘muppet’ would be throwing out drive by’s. (Which is also, confirming the statement is, RIGHT) Remember, a 'count' is only if someone is signed in. If they are not, the count could be a thousand views, with no counts showing. “Crickets”. LOL |
|
Title: Re: Redfield Post by J Mac on 03/11/23 at 08:12:03 https://nypost.com/2013/12/05/cricket-burgers-a-surprise-hit-in-nyc/ |
|
Title: Re: Redfield Post by Eegore on 03/11/23 at 08:35:49 "When JOG posts something, that no one has a counter to. It is an affirmation that he is RIGHT. It is proof that the UL, DFI, FDS, Socialists, Agree That the posting is RIGHT. So he cares, or he wouldn't comment about it. What you guys keep ignoring is that the "views" are not unique. Maybe being RIGHT is so important this is intentionally ignored. "Views" are NOT unique, they can be from the same person, why is this such an issue with some of you? It's just a simple, provable, fact. Saying 6 people read your post because there are 6 "views" is wrong. This should not be an ongoing b!tch session, it's just a fact. "Remember, a 'count' is only if someone is signed in. If they are not, the count could be a thousand views, with no counts showing. “Crickets”. LOL" Remember a "count" is NOT unique. Claims that 6 "views" are from 6 different members is wrong. This is what I am addressing. Instead of calling people Gutless, or saying look how RIGHT I am because the "views" prove it, maybe accept that multiple "views" does NOT mean multiple members. I am responsible for many, many duplicate "views" and informing people of this seems to make some people angry. One can still be RIGHT, and still accept that multiple "views" does not mean multiple people read the post. |
|
Title: Re: Redfield Post by MnSpring on 03/11/23 at 09:44:25 133331392433560 wrote:
A-Yep, do understand, you and your software, can rack up 100's of views in less than a min. Yet, a person, who is viewing, which is not signed in, can VIEW, without creating a 'count'. When a topic is put forth, by certain people, it IS READ, just that, the person/s who viewed, are not signed in. |
|
Title: Re: Redfield Post by Eegore on 03/11/23 at 11:12:05 A-Yep, do understand, you and your software, can rack up 100's of views in less than a min. Yet, a person, who is viewing, which is not signed in, can VIEW, without creating a 'count'. Agreed, this is why I said a "view" counter can never be fully accurate. None of that changes the fact that some members look at the "views", incorrectly assess that the "views" were different people, and that justifies insulting members for being too "chicken schitt to reply". When in reality - only one person read the post. Why informing people of this is upsetting I do not know. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |