RagingInMiami
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 03:24 PM
Original message |
Am I the only one that gets annoyed with the use of "n/t"? n/t |
kick-ass-bob
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 03:25 PM
Response to Original message |
freeplessinseattle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 03:25 PM
Response to Original message |
2. your alternative? (eom) |
RagingInMiami
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
Just say what you have to say and leave it at that.
|
freeplessinseattle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
11. um, some people don't want to click on a post only to find there is n/t |
Worst Username Ever
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 03:25 PM
Response to Original message |
kick-ass-bob
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
Lavender Brown
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 03:26 PM
Response to Original message |
The empressof all
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 03:27 PM
Response to Original message |
7. I like it--short and sweet (nt) (eom) whatever |
Shakespeare
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 03:29 PM
Response to Original message |
8. On long threads, it's very helpful. |
|
I'm irritated when somebody DOESN'T use the "n/t" to note that there's nothing but the subject line. Nothing like clicking on post 243 that has an intriguing subject line, only to pull up the post and find it empty. Bleah.
|
Viva_La_Revolution
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 03:29 PM
Response to Original message |
|
some of us from the very early days of chat and dial-up find the rule still applies, esp. in very fast threads like the ones following C-Span today. :hi:
|
flvegan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 03:30 PM
Response to Original message |
Redneck Socialist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 03:30 PM
Response to Original message |
12. Only when people put it in the body of the message. |
|
I mean :wtf: . The point of n/t is to tell people that there is no more message so you don't click on their post. Putting n/t in the message defeats the purpose.
So yeah, when it is missused it pisses me off.
|
kick-ass-bob
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
|
Of course I usually don't go too far into really long threads (300+). I usually just show all up until there (fast connection)
|
Viva_La_Revolution
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
Lost4words
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 03:34 PM
Response to Original message |
14. Not as much as I am annoyed by people who do not use (n/t) |
|
Edited on Thu Jan-06-05 03:35 PM by 8643
Am I the only one that gets annoyed with people who dont use either eom or n/t?
I get so tired of opening individual posts with snappy headings only to find a blank screen! Thats why you should use eom and or n/t for END OF MESSAGE or NO TEXT.
Some uo us have mud slow dial up connections and selecting VIEW ALL on a large thread takes painfully long to load.
I am sorry you are annoyed but try to have some consideration and understanding why IT IS A GOOD IDEA. I call it courtesy.
:spank: :nuke:
|
Viva_La_Revolution
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
|
... to show there is text.
|
mdhunter
(373 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 03:34 PM
Response to Original message |
15. Maybe you should try the friendlier (nt) instead. (nt) |
jonnyblitz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 03:39 PM
Response to Original message |
18. it saves trouble. i like it. you dont waste time checking for text. nt |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 08:09 PM
Response to Original message |