People who Post...

[BlueReign]

I have to add to this and admit that I am one of those people that would say somebody has no life because they spend so much time on message boards. But then I realized something. I would be also the first one to say that to someone who spends a good deal of time watching tv or talking on the telephone. Then I had to think again because my mother was a tv/telephone person when I was growing up and I wouldn't dare say that she had "no life". (not unless I wanted to pick my face up off the floor!). She has often said that she can't live without the two whereas, I can. My mother is also much more of a social and outgoing person than I am.

So, I guess I am thinking along these lines, if a person is not very sociable person but spends a lot of time on the internet then does that person "have no life"?

[sigmadiva]

Originally posted by ladygreek
Thank you for the luv.

But you do realize that the total number of posts on any message board is the aggregate of the years that person has been one. So say a person has 20,000 posts over 5 years. That is an average of 4,000/year, 11/day, 1.4/hour (over an 8 hour period.) That hardly equates to excessive time in front of a computer.

Great breakdown of the stats.

Also using what you have deduced, the same would apply to computer programmers, software designers, web designers, and any other technology professional. So they are all sitting in front of their computers getting fat. [B]

Yes.

[sigmadiva]

Originally posted by Boom_Quack13
Just because a person posts a lot, doesn't mean that they don't do anything else. They may still do an hour at the gym every day, as well. WE don't know.

I think that folks who sit around ASSuming about what others do, when not logged on are the ones with no life.

I never ASSumed about what others do when not logged on. I assumed about what others can not be doing if they are logged on so much. There is a difference. Of course I can not assume what others are doing when not logged on. There is no way for anyone to determine that unless one knows the person personally. But, when a person is logged on *and* posting, and since the posts are tallied, (and GC does give an average tally per day, I think), it can be deduced that there is a good chance that that person is not doing much else. That is to say, posting and going to the gym (actually working out).

One can always hypothesize based on information given. It does not mean you (the general you) have to agree.

But, I do enjoy that you all are so taken by my hypothesis.

[sigmadiva]

Originally posted by BlueReign

So, I guess I am thinking along these lines, if a person is not very sociable person but spends a lot of time on the internet then does that person "have no life"?

If by 'a lot of time' you mean most of their waking hours, then I would say yes. Especially if they are not very sociable.

[ladygreek]

Originally posted by sigmadiva
If by 'a lot of time' you mean most of their waking hours, then I would say yes. Especially if they are not very sociable.

But maybe that is their life. If a person is not very sociable in person, the internet may be a way for them to be so. So who are we to judge what is an acceptable "life." What you enjoy, others may not. But that does not make your "life" anymore better than theirs.

[mulattogyrl]

What makes someone 'have a life' anyway? I think we might all define that differently. I'm not the kind of person that goes out a lot, has company at my house, etc., and I guess by some people's standards that would mean I don't have a life. But to me, I enjoy time alone watching TV or talking on the phone. Sometimes I'm just not beat to be around people, that's just me. I don't feel like I don't have a life, I'm satisfied with spending time alone. Some people are just like that. But then again, that's another angle to look at this subject - whether or not the person is satisfied with their life the way it is. They could be like me, just not beat to be around people all the time.

[sigmadiva]

Originally posted by ladygreek
But maybe that is their life. If a person is not very sociable in person, the internet may be a way for them to be so. So who are we to judge what is an acceptable "life." What you enjoy, others may not. But that does not make your "life" anymore better than theirs.

Ah, but I never said better, nor did I intend to imply it.

The original poster made a comment on an observation about the number of posts a person has. I offered my interpretation on the comment. You (the general you) may or may not agree with my assesment. When someone asks 'What do you think' I am going to say what I think.

We all judge on what is an acceptable "life". We do it everyday. What is acceptable for some may not be acceptable for others. And that is okay. At the end of the day you should be happy doing what you do. It really should not matter what anyone thinks.

I think a "life" involves a good deal of physical activity and interacting with people face to face (yes, I do recognize that it does not happen on GC ). This is *my* definition.

[ladygreek]

But that is my point. I also interact face-to-face a lot, as well as post on multiple MBs. One does not preclude the other.

I serve on three nonprofit boards of directors, serve as an adjunct instructor in the MBA program of a local University, do internet consulting work, and I am very active in my sorority--locally, regionally, and nationally. And I manage to walk an hour each day. How? I don't restrict myself to 9-5--it's called multi-tasking.

[sigmadiva]

Originally posted by ladygreek
But that is my point. I also interact face-to-face a lot, as well as post on multiple MBs. One does not preclude the other.

I serve on three nonprofit boards of directors, serve as an adjunct instructor in the MBA program of a local University, do internet consulting work, and I am very active in my sorority--locally, regionally, and nationally. And I manage to walk an hour each day. How? I don't restrict myself to 9-5--it's called multi-tasking.

Great!!