I agree with Rudi; and have made my feelings known to the powers that be.

Omni has turned into a wasteland of silly posts.

I venture to Omni every so often. If some people feel the need to post idiotic topics, far be it from me to stop them.

And to those that posts these topics...they should seek medical help. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Edited to add that many Omni posting are legit.

Dan

[This message has been edited by dhammer53 (edited 10-28-2002).]

Maybe I am -- and maybe I am. Or perhaps I was only responding to your comments above where you personalized the discussion on OMNI:

So you just like to imply things instead? Who are you to speak for me? I don't know who you are talking about until you come out and say it. So please do others a favour and do not say that "all of us" know what you are implying.

FewMiles..


------------------
[ FlyerTalkers' Resources on the Web ]
[ Unofficial Guide to AAdvantage ] [ Unofficial oneworld Info Desk ]

As I'd already noted in the related thread over in OMNI, "...while I personally continue to post, as I always have, genuine factual articles, from reliable sources, that I sincerely believe are of general interest and suitable for the common good to whatever extent that it exists here on FT, it truly saddens me to think that some members would willfully "SPAM" the board, to supposedly teach some "lesson" or something/whatever, at the knowing expense of others who may well be on slow connections!

I thought we all posted what we thought was good to post, no? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Again, I would certainly be most willing to post less in OMNI and, for that matter, everywhere on FT.

I would also be willing to completely withdraw from OMNI posting altogether!

Do we really actually need to have an "OMNI" section?

In fact, I'd even be willing, as I've noted previously, to retire from posting altogether!

Perhaps that "Emeritus" title looks increasingly appealing to one as they age!" http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

---

My purpose, plain and simple, as I believe nearly everyone here already knows, is to serve all FT'ers in general and Randy & Co. in particular, as best as I possibly can.

FWIW, it seems that the issue here is that not everyone likes that - or me, for that matter! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Yet notably, it's the seeming changed behavior of "others" rather than myself, and the resulting posting binge(s) that resulted that has produced the current "big problem" here!

Again, I do not control what others post, nor they control my posting behavior!

To those who do not like my posts, I'm truly sorry, but I can not possibly please everyone - as hard as I might try! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

For those who have been around FT for a good while, I'd previoulsy offered to limit my posts each day and there was no agreement on a number of posts, nor other related matters. It was essentially not regarded as a viable solution.

http://www.flyertalk.com/pasttalk/ft...ML/000632.html

Again, I get absolutely nothing from posting here on FT other then the pleasure of sharing info with others - but I do not have to do it! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

And again, do we really truly need an "OMNI" section after all? Has its' time come and gone?

Maybe, maybe not, but you know who would be first in line to complain when it's gone, don't you?

I would be amongst the first to complain!

Why should OMNI be taken away from the MAJORITY of FT'ers, only because a minority cannot exhibit the slightest bit of self control?

Does that mean that to disagree with you means being against FT'ers in general and/or Randy & Co.? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/confused.gif

Is that a fact? So whose behavior is/has produced the current big problem in omni? Whose posting binge(s) has brought about this debate?

Was it Rudi on Sunday when he posted to 22 threads? Or morrissey's 18 threads posted to that day? [I assume I need not ask whether your posting to 95 threads that same day could be seen as a binge leading to a big problem?]

Or the day earlier, with morrissey's 17 threads? [Again, should I not ask of your 42?]

Surely Morrissey's 12 threads on October 24 were a binge -- though quite tame compared to someone else's 60.

Why is it that you seem to consider other people's posting of many threads as a binge, while you are a self-described public service for the benefit of all? Do other frequent OMNI contributors not deserve the same credit you do? (though presumably in smaller doses.)

[Edited for UBB coding.]

[This message has been edited by SMessier (edited 10-28-2002).]

[pointless exercise in banging head against wall]

[This message has been edited by anonplz (edited 10-28-2002).]

---

Yes, it is a fact! Perhaps you missed it! They said so! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

---

---

---


And I have virtually no objection whatsoever to their posts, nor did I previously! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

You must really like grinding that ax, eh? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Have a great day/evening everyone! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

-Mark

"pointless exercise in banging head against wall"

anonplz ... that IS the non-official definition of what OMNI is about to many here after all. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

I am pretty much with Dan Hammer on this one.

Am I one of your "Axis Of Evil" quintet? I have posted about 30 threads there in 2.5 years. Is that excessive? That is less than one a month when you average it out. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

THE surest way to cure yourself of getting annoyed with OMNI is on your computer screen right now. It is the tiny little "X" icon top right of your screen. Press that and you will be get over it every time. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif



------------------
~ Glen ~ Calling all United 1K Members - please join .. www.1Kflyers.com

I know better than to venture into this quagmire, but...

I think many of the recent barrage of posts were actually good. But there are just too **** many of them. At one point, the 24-hour backlog was six pages long. That's IMHO a bit too much.

I don't think there should be fixed post limits, but could folks please just contemplate the volume that our little heads can comprehend in one fell swoop? Post a dozen good links, but then let other members post some stuff too.

Yeah, a lot of OMNI is silly to the point of sophmoric, such as the word association thread and the three and six-word stories. But a lot of us use OMNI as much as our silliness release as our news/debate release. It is important for devotees of both sides to understand the benefits that their counterparts (or those of us that like to balance discussion with silliness) perceive.

I started posting endless, trivial news links to make the point what OMNI would be like if EVERYONE felt the need to post 20+ topics a day which contain no original content. I was always under the impression that OMNI was a discussion board, not a 24-hour news channel. If a person wishes to start a thread about an item in the news and give his/her opinion of said item, that is one thing. But to just endlessly copy news items (which takes all of 20 seconds) is a bit excessive.

I like to think that we are all "guests" here, and that we should conduct ourselves as such. To use a real-life analogy, the next time you are invited to a party, stand up on a chair, pull out a copy of the New York Times, and start reading all the headlines in a very loud voice that drowns out all the other conversation. Would that make you popular?

Did anyone happen to see "Bear in the Big Blue House" today?

If so, did the cousin remind you of someone?

I would say that perhaps a better approach than limiting the number of new posts someone starts each day (which I'll be very surprised if UBB can support, so the whole idea is more protest than workable solution) would be to change the TOS to forbid postings consisting solely of news stories with no commentary (perhaps an exemption would be appropriate for In the News)

It makes no sense to call these kinds of posts thoughtful. If the objective is truly to spur discussion by contributing something interesting about which people might talk, then the discussion should begin with the original poster.

If the poster himself is not motivated enough to share an opinion on the topic, then why should anyone else?

Provided that the spirit of the rule were followed (rather than simplistic opinion offered as a technicality), then perhaps real discussions would result rather than pages of 0 reply threads.

I'm not saying the level of discourse has to be high - which way the toilet paper should roll is a worthy diversion any day of the week, but we should at least focus it on things that at least one person, the poster, finds intersting enough to discuss.

Nope.

But I saw lots of big cut outs of Smokey The Bear last week when driving around Yosemite.

They all kinda reminded me of Cigarman. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif