Inane Contributions to the Community - Top 5 Styles

[shlub]

Reading through the post regarding the who are the top five most annoying posters, I realized that I am annoyed by contribution styles or proclivities as opposed to specific individuals.

The ones that make me shake my head, roll my eyes, etc. are listed below. Providers and Hobbyists, please share yours...

5. Anyone utilizing multiple fonts, font sizes, colors, multiple animated clipart and other early myspace style visual vomit.

4. Providers (or their management) posting ads, ThreADs or ISO replies comprised of assurances, declarations or exclamations telling you that they are "the best" or some other example of their grandiosity.

3. Anyone worshipping, brown-nosing or otherwise paying homage to ECCIE staff, power reviewers or stripper of the month talent scouts.

2. Hobbyists who, at every opportunity, incessantly post or otherwise provide unsolicited, subjective commentary on a given providers looks, services or other attributes.

1. Anyone demonstrating possession of both an intellect on the uphill side of the Belle Curve as well as significant entitlement or ego issues. Stupidity and Narcissism by themselves are irritating but together they are reprehensible.

[L.A.]

Originally Posted by shlub

The ones that make me shake my head, roll my eyes, etc. are listed below. Providers and Hobbyists, please share yours...

1. People with 359 posts and zero reviews

2. Providers who respond to EVERY iso post especially when they obviously do not match the iso.

3. Any post that disagrees with mine.

[mtabsw]

1. People who make lists
2. People who don't make lists

[Thuck Fat]

Inane contributions?


Let's see......Reviews that lack enough information for other hobbyists to make an informed decision on seeing said Provider. Yes, many of these reviews are written by so called "well-established" hobbyists.

[john_deere]

Originally Posted by shlub

Reading through the post regarding the who are the top five most annoying posters, I realized that I am annoyed by contribution styles or proclivities as opposed to specific individuals.

The ones that make me shake my head, roll my eyes, etc. are listed below. Providers and Hobbyists, please share yours...

5. Anyone utilizing multiple fonts, font sizes, colors, multiple animated clipart and other early myspace style visual vomit.

4. Providers (or their management) posting ads, ThreADs or ISO replies comprised of assurances, declarations or exclamations telling you that they are "the best" or some other example of their grandiosity.

3. Anyone worshipping, brown-nosing or otherwise paying homage to ECCIE staff, power reviewers or stripper of the month talent scouts.

2. Hobbyists who, at every opportunity, incessantly post or otherwise provide unsolicited, subjective commentary on a given providers looks, services or other attributes.

1. Anyone demonstrating possession of both an intellect on the uphill side of the Belle Curve as well as significant entitlement or ego issues. Stupidity and Narcissism by themselves are irritating but together they are reprehensible.

i could've made this list. lol!

but..."belle" curve? freudian slip?

seriously, though..."uphill side of the bell curve"...that's fucking poetry right there!

[Guest062316]

AMEN!!! I think we also need to add to the list to people that do not believe in punctuations; and do crazy three page long run on sentences. I will read the first two sentences (usually of 0 substance) then move on to the next post. We might need to twitterize the offenders into 150 charectors or less.

[Laura Lynn]

Contributors that don't spell check.

[shlub]

LA - The subjective nature of ECCIE reviews is the main reason that I do not view them as a reliable method of determining who I would like to see. As such, I do not feel driven to post my own. However; I have found that the discussions in Coed, Men's Lounge and occasionally the Alerts forum provide valuable insight into a variety of provider and hobbyist attributes. It is in these forums that I choose to contribute.

Yes, Belle" was indeed a slip her the tongue.

[Tiger Woods]

Originally Posted by shlub

LA - The subjective nature of ECCIE reviews is the main reason that I do not view them as a reliable method of determining who I would like to see. As such, I do not feel driven to post my own. However; I have found that the discussions in Coed, Men's Lounge and occasionally the Alerts forum provide valuable insight into a variety of provider and hobbyist attributes. It is in these forums that I choose to contribute.

Yes, Belle" was indeed a slip her the tongue.

We can't be too tough on him. Of his 15 reviews, three are on Chris, two on Sue and two on Lisa, all at Smile. So almost half are redundant and on the same venue. Also, all the reviews are "yes". Now that is valuable and useful.

And, back to the topic. I insist on being the most inane contributor. Please vote for me.

[L.A.]

Originally Posted by Tiger Woods

We can't be too tough on him. Of his 15 reviews, three are on Chris, two on Sue and two on Lisa, all at Smile. So almost half are redundant and on the same venue. Also, all the reviews are "yes". Now that is valuable and useful.

And, back to the topic. I insist on being the most inane contributor. Please vote for me.

15-0

I do find it funny you looked up an analyzed my reviews.
Yeah please don't be too tough on me...you might hurt my feelings.

What was this thread about? Oh yeah..inane contributions to this community.

That was a good one Laura Lynn. I'm assuming timing was everything on your post.

[Dharma]

One thing that's relatively new and makes me move on to the next thread is name calling. I don't know when this was considered ok but I take note of the poster and tend to lose interest in what the original thread was about.

People who type all in caps and don't know how to use punctuation. If they just use a period now and then, their post might be readable.

Review bumps or any posts with a response of "+1" or any numerical value.

[pyramider]

Inane contributions could be defined as any post without taint.

[SweetAterPie]

Plus one.
And if I may add this little nugget,

[bojulay]

Short ones.



And the ones that just seem to go on forever and ever without ever really
saying much of anything I mean come on how many words does it take
to make a simple point for christ sake diarrhea of the mouth is what I call
it those are the same people that never shut up once they have an audience
that they think that they need to inlighten or something kind of like they are
privilege to the inside information on whatever subject is being discussed
masters of the obvious is usually the case droning on forever in almost some
kind of pointless conversation with themselves love to blow their own horn
and see just how loud they can get attention whores to the inth degree
blab blab blab on and on they will go.....sorry to cut this short but there
is something that I need to go do.