|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Re: George-Sanders-like-ennui (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
Well said!! Good move!!
|
Nov 16 '07
11:18 am PST
|
|
Re: George-Sanders-like-ennui (Reply to this comment)
by AggieBrett
Where do I post?
Well, lots of places, but none that relate so specifically to anything from Epinions that I really have a hankering to leave a clear and obvious trail. That's not meant to sound either precious or obscure, yet I am sure it comes across as both.
In a lot of ways, Epinions has come to symbolize a decade of poor choices and wasted time. Yeah, I made some interesting acquaintances while chasing pennies (thanks, Nirav!), but on the whole, in hindsight I sorely wish I'd directed that time, attention, and creativity to other more worthwhile and respectable pursuits.
Oh well. Onwards.
.
.
.
B
|
Dec 29 '06
8:55 am PST
|
|
George-Sanders-like-ennui (Reply to this comment)
by Penguinlady
I'm exhausted just reading all your disclaimers.
So where DO you post, other than here? I'd like to read some of your new stuff, and this sure isn't the place to do it...
And whatever became of Groinpunchers???
Margaret
|
Apr 08 '06
1:57 pm PDT
|
|
Is there garlic around my neck? (Reply to this comment)
by jpeter
Like you I saw my WOT shrink in what seemed over night (Ok two years but who's counting?) like a wool sweater that mistakingly got tossed in the dryer. Same as generic cheese, the content of reviews does not degrade due to time. Oh well, I'll throw some water on my dying tree and see if it lives...
jpeter
|
Nov 08 '05
7:16 pm PST
|
|
Hey Brett-- (Reply to this comment)
by 29th_Candidate
I still look in on things here too. I even post a review here and there, but that's seems to be when I lose all my trusters (about 10 in the 2 weeks following my most recent post). On the bright side; it pleases me to know I haven't lost my obnoxious touch. Next review, I'm shooting for 25.
Hope you're doing well, buddy.
--jim
|
Sep 17 '05
1:40 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: you don't have to go two years to lose them... (Reply to this comment)
by Petra
BTW-- I hear Edward James Olmos is available for an interview if we get strapped for content.
Heee he he ... I talked to him at the Golden Eagle Awards, and suddenly his mother started yelling that they needed to get going. It was the most bizarre piece of evidence that mothers rule their sons' lives no matter how old or famous they get.
|
Apr 15 '05
11:05 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: you don't have to go two years to lose them... (Reply to this comment)
by AggieBrett
>> Only peculiar thing is that you're not published yet.
Listen up, meine kleine reinemachefrau-- I *have* been published.
You're *clearly* not one the four subscribers to The West Houston Picayune Saver-Times Birdcage Liner Weekly.
BTW-- I hear Edward James Olmos is available for an interview if we get strapped for content.
Danke for the r/r/c.
.
.
.
B
|
Apr 15 '05
6:06 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: you don't have to go two years to lose them... (Reply to this comment)
by Petra
Eh ... some of them probably just died and fell off the site.
Only peculiar thing is that you're not published yet.
|
Apr 15 '05
12:57 am PDT
|
|
Re: you don't have to go two years to lose them... (Reply to this comment)
by AggieBrett
>> Glad to hear you've been getting real money. You
>> deserved it all along. One of these days when your
>> Texas áss is big-time famous, I will help all the tabloid
>> trogs find as much dirt as possible on you from your
>> humble Eps days (for a suitable finder's fee, of course).
So I got THAT goin' for me.
As for the money, it's real pretty much ONLY in comparison to the pennies that Epinions saw/sees fit to toss our way. Still, it's fun to get paid in real dollars for words read by real people and NOT subjected to peer review by knuckle-walkers, mouth-breathers and paste-eaters (not that there be any such critter operating here on Epinions... nosirree bob).
Here's to hoping your trogs have cause to get busy sooner rather than later. ;-)
.
.
.
B
|
Apr 12 '05
9:49 pm PDT
|
|
you don't have to go two years to lose them... (Reply to this comment)
by jkkelley
...the same thing's been happening to me, and I go many months but rarely a year between reviews. I kinda wonder if they aren't pruning old accounts that haven't logged in for a long time, but like you, I don't really care.
Glad to hear you've been getting real money. You deserved it all along. One of these days when your Texas áss is big-time famous, I will help all the tabloid trogs find as much dirt as possible on you from your humble Eps days (for a suitable finder's fee, of course).
jkk
|
Apr 11 '05
1:32 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Hi there (Reply to this comment)
by AggieBrett
>> I've added you to my e-mail alerts, so when you do
>> write something, you can be assured that I will read
>> it with interest, and I hope to add you to my WoT in
>> the coming future.
Well, thanks (truly), but if you are seriously interested in seeing FUTURE content from me as opposed to PREVIOUS content, then Eps is probably not the best street corner on which to spend your evenings waiting. This piece surprised me as much as anyone — I honestly had no intention of posting again here, but suddenly this specific little thought/rant popped into my head, and since it seemed interesting to pursue for a few minutes and then had zero usefulness or value for any other venue or outlet, I decided to tie it 'round a rock and toss it through the open window.
I've been here since June of 2000 (Lord-- has it REALLY been almost five years? Wow...), so I'm not unfamiliar with the way the world works locally. I've never played the trust game, and (any current appearances to the contrary not withstanding) do not obsess over the hit counts and WOT size. I was merely struck by the odd way that *others* apparently look at such matters — that trust is something which somehow magically or suddenly runs down like an old clock or a battery operated toy, and that somehow a person can be arbitrarily moved from one pile to another in the pantheon of credibility and respect and trust and so on. To my way of thinking, dependability is one of the hallmarks of true character. If I can rely on someone only some of the time, or only when it is most convenient or enjoyable for them, then I can't truly rely on them at all, can I?
There are a lot of names on my WOT who have not posted on this site in four years or more. That's like two entire generations in web time. yet I "trust" these people as much today as I did that moment years ago when I clicked on the little onscreen icon next to something they'd posted.
I'd always assumed that there was nothing much special or rare about this sort of behavior, but apparently there are other ways of handling issues of trust and respect. I'm not judging or criticizing, mind you — I am merely noting (though perhaps with a melancholy tinge of regret and disappointment).
Still, thanks for the thoughts. If ever I decide to surprise myself with some future post hereabouts, I guess you'll be among the first to know. ;)
.
.
.
B
|
Apr 05 '05
9:04 am PDT
|
|
Re: About my rating (Reply to this comment)
by AggieBrett
>> I'd have about 23 ways to rate including: Park, Drive,
>> Low1, with cheese, place stamp here, this reviewer
>> should be shot and dismembered, Freebird, Pacific
>> Islander, and WWJD.
I've heard it said that all truly great ideas sound absurd upon first utterance.
You must therefore be a consistent genius, Dave.
Fly high, lesbian seagull. Saaaaaaa-lute.
.
.
.
B
|
Apr 04 '05
8:22 am PDT
|
|
About my rating (Reply to this comment)
by sweeper
It's too bad they only give you four, maybe five choices to rate a post. There should be more. I mean, if you'd let me determine the choices to rate a post, I'd have about 23 ways to rate including: Park, Drive, Low1, with cheese, place stamp here, this reviewer should be shot and dismembered, Freebird, Pacific Islander, and WWJD.
Not only would this make the rating system more comprehensive and informative, it would keep folks more engaged with the site. Not that you would have stuck around but those who would stick around because of my rating system would be great targets. As if the place needed more. May all your chili be Texan.
|
Apr 04 '05
7:47 am PDT
|
|
Re: Yeah, well... (Reply to this comment)
by AggieBrett
>> some of us still remember you fondly
Garsh.
(blush)
.
.
.
semifond at best B
|
Apr 03 '05
9:11 pm PDT
|
|
Yeah, well... (Reply to this comment)
by Dr_Steph
...some of us still remember you fondly. :)
Steph
|
Apr 03 '05
8:10 pm PDT
|
|
Re: ...... (Reply to this comment)
by AggieBrett
>> Who in the hell are you?
Not sure.
But thanks for asking.
.
.
.
B
|
Apr 03 '05
8:06 pm PDT
|
|
...... (Reply to this comment)
by sslabs
Who in the hell are you?
Ha! Just kidding.
No seriously, who are you?
- Tony
|
Apr 03 '05
7:33 pm PDT
|
|
Re: One key difference... (Reply to this comment)
by AggieBrett
I was looking more to that whole "passes without impact or effect" analogy to neutrinos.
And is it just me, or does "Neutrinos" sound like a totally cool breakfast cereal that glows in the dark?
As for WOT-pruning... I guess I'm just cut from different cloth, as I can't imagine suddenly "no longer trusting" Sloucho or Nathsmom or Sordid or MPTang or Lobstergirl or Repulsemonkey or any of a ton of other similar folks who all now seem to have sailed to some Gray Havens. Whatever it was that they once posted that won my favor and friendship is still there, even if only in memory rather than live online and still spewing forth fresh content.
I'm not judging, mind you—I'm just saying.
Meanwhile, thanks for the luv, perfesser.
.
.
.
B
|
Apr 03 '05
12:43 pm PDT
|
|
One key difference... (Reply to this comment)
by prfstars
.. unlike your interest in Epinions, neutrinos don't slow down when they pass through you. It's this very property that makes it possible to detect the little buggers in giant tanks of carbon tetrachloride or pure water. Gosh, I miss Arthur Rubin.
I've wondered the same thing about trust. I assume that most people don't weed their webs of trust daily-- they look it over once in a while, and pluck if there's someone they no longer trust. So it's not that Fred trusted you on day #97; he just didn't give a rip about his WOT until he happened to look it over on day #123.
When I look at the list of people I trust, the majority of them haven't written anything here in a long time, and I don't care. I didn't add them because they were prolific-- I added them because I got to know them through their writings and I genuinely liked them. I still like them. Years from now, my inactive account will still trust Nathsmom's inactive account.
|
Apr 03 '05
10:24 am PDT
|
|
Re: Oh so many differences..... (Reply to this comment)
by AggieBrett
>> I didn't even notice any change in my WOT.
Well, I've never had any spreadsheet or log of my activity. The only reason I even noticed was that the old 125 number had been a fixed part of my account profile for so long that it seemed as constant as my screenname and bio information. Then one day... it started dropping. And that caught my eye, and then it dropped again, and I started looking every week or two just for amusement. When it hit 120 the other day, I just started doodling into an open text window, and twenty minutes later I had what you see posted here as an essay.
I doubt the world will be shaken much by anything addressed therein.
I do kinda wonder where all the Fun People wandered off to. This site seems to be percolating along, dull as it ever was, but the quirky undercurrent of clowns, miscreants, and smart alecks ('my people") seem to have packed up and headed out. I just wonder where they all went.
.
.
.
B
|
Apr 03 '05
8:59 am PDT
|
|
Re: A real writing gig? (Reply to this comment)
by AggieBrett
Well, the paying side of the game remains sadly undersized. I am getting pair, but not enough, and not often enough, and not for the sort of thing that I'd most want to write if given my d'ruthers. But still... it's amusing to realize that 90 minutes of work on one of these little pieces still brings me more money and far less annoyance than five years of posting to Epinions ever did.
The truly tragic part about efforts on Epinions is that there is a finite amount of time and energy in one's life, and to think back to all I wasted on behalf of this silly damned site... well, if I were in the right mood, I might get a might depressed over the whole thing.
So I won't. ;-)
Thanks for the thoughts, words, time.
.
.
.
B
|
Apr 03 '05
8:53 am PDT
|
|
Oh so many differences..... (Reply to this comment)
by jsaunt
...between you and me. You're a much better and funnier writer. But I, too, seem to have lost the interest that I once had in the site....although I still come back and check once in a while (and when I do, I don't really get any satisfaction for the moment it took). But the other difference is that I didn't even notice any change in my WOT....(couldn't notice since I didn't look).
Anyway, you'll still be on my WOT until they make my account inactive.
Even if only every 2 years or so, good to read your thoughts again. In a way those were good times.
Leslie
|
Apr 03 '05
8:38 am PDT
|
|
A real writing gig? (Reply to this comment)
by hadassahchana
About time, if you ask me. Ok, so you didn't, but maybe you should have. At any rate, put me on the list of those you'll kvell to when you do get something published?
As for the WOT thing, ...ah, never mind. I can't think of anything importnat to say about it. Some people do the hokey-pokey thing all the time- trust you drop you lather rinse repeat. They aren't even worth noticing. To put it a different way, people who keep Excel spreadsheets of their WOTs have a lot more to worry about than the size of their WOT, if you know what I mean.
Nice to see you again. I miss your writing, and I still remember that wonderful review of the hill country of Texas which so moved me.
Cindy
|
Apr 03 '05
8:22 am PDT
|
|
Re: ... (Reply to this comment)
by AggieBrett
I'm not actually concerned with the trust issue beyond the odd curious question of "why now?" w/r/t removal from someone's WOT. If I'd done something -- ANYTHING -- that might draw attention or give some any reason to ponder upon my trustability and maybe rethink the question and possibly change their stance on the issue, then OK, maybe that's fine. But it strikes me as odd -- and I mean that in a smirking humorous sense -- that someone can win another's trust, hold it for years, and then, for no reason and through no specific action, can suddenly warrant someone taking the active steps required to be REMOVED from a WOT.
To my way of thinking, that's not far removed from sending Christmas notes explaining that you no longer consider someone deserving of a Christmas card.
No complaints or concerns. Just idle amusement and curiosity.
Thanks for the read, rate, etc.
.
.
.
B
|
Apr 03 '05
7:39 am PDT
|
|
Re: I'm a lot like you... (Reply to this comment)
by AggieBrett
Well, I was never especially "active" on Eps㬪 pieces in 5 years is hardly a whirlwind of output, even with some tellingly long breaks rolled into the old postography.
As I've said since Day One, I was attracted to Epinions for the money and for the fun. Pretty much both dried up (for me, at least) long long ago, and now I can get a whole lot more of both by writing for other better outlets. Still, it's kinda melancholifying to every once in a while look back and remember what was.
But thanks for the RR&C.
.
.
.
B
|
Apr 03 '05
7:31 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: I always thought... (Reply to this comment)
by AggieBrett
>> That's the result of Texas chili.
Is there another kind?
>> Maybe you're looking at ths all wrong, B. Maybe
>> people are trying to coerce you into coming back.
Yeah-- I'm SURE that's it. All those villagers with torches and pitchforks? Just a "WELCOME COMMITTEE."
Uh huh.
;-)
.
.
.
frankenB
|
Apr 03 '05
7:26 am PDT
|
|
Re: Not writing is a worrisome thing (Reply to this comment)
by AggieBrett
>> You, m'friend, have become an object of distrust to
>> those who require constant and adoring attention
>> to this site.
Wow. I kinda sorta figgered I'd been that all along.
I guess I'll have to redouble my lack of effort. At present, tagging highway overpasses offers pretty much everything Epinions does.
.
.
.
B
|
Apr 03 '05
7:21 am PDT
|
|
... (Reply to this comment)
by aashok
Just for the record, I took you off my WOT because of all the excessive spitting! Couldn't take it anymore. It must be the chewing tubbakee :)
However, I still miss sniffing some of those occasional brainfarts emanating from your keyboard.
** PHTEW **
Ash
|
Apr 03 '05
7:14 am PDT
|
|
I'm a lot like you... (Reply to this comment)
by dtobias
I used to be more active here, and have gone through periods of inactivity (once I didn't write anything here for a full year), but haven't dropped off entirely; I still keep coming back and writing more.
|
Apr 03 '05
6:26 am PDT
|
|
Re: I always thought... (Reply to this comment)
by gracef
you were a Great Thundering Something.
That's the result of Texas chili.
Maybe you're looking at ths all wrong, B. Maybe people are trying to coerce you into coming back. (That wouldn't be a bad thing!)
|
Apr 03 '05
6:22 am PDT
|
|
|
|
