Is A2K Losing Some of its Luster?

dlowan wrote:

What the hell is "jonesing"?

In the current Amerislang sense, it equates roughly to "craving" ... desperately wanting something you ain't got. It originated in the drug culture of the jazz world, probqably in New York's Harlem, and originally referred to heroin withdrawl ... "Man, he's jonesing bad". The broadening of the meaning to general craving took place more or less in the late '60s - early '70s, as former drug culture terms came into general youth culture useage, often with shifts in meaning.

0 Replies

Damn Murricans need to learn English.

:wink:

Thanks Timber....

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

nimh wrote:
Oldtimers sniping at each other but blaming the newbies for the site going to shite ... gotta love people

I'm sure you can see why I chose to clarify.

You forgot to include the smiley when you quoted my post...

Yeah, I can see why you chose to clarify - and that is why I clarified, as well - fair enough. Still, your taking my post personally, and calling it a "shrill and paranoid interpretation" was a bit of a, heh, shrill and paranoid interpretation :wink:

0 Replies

Re: Is A2K Losing Some of its Luster?
Thanks Craven for your info

Craven de Kere wrote:

It's pretty simple dude. The visitors aren't the only thing that grows. The destinations are growing in number as well. ;-)

Yeah, just thought it was odd that the top sites wouldnt grow along with the total volume - you'd think that the new internet users use the top sites in roughly equal proportion to the old users, and that they would thus grow along in comparable measure with total internet traffic.. (unless like I was speculating, its a language thing, but the top Chinese sites werent showing a systematic increase on Alexa either..)

Craven de Kere wrote:

As to the internet growing, I don't get why you are trying to measure that through the alexa stats. Nothing they have in their free statistics will show you that growth.

Silly question perhaps, but is there actually any kind of place where they'd collect some sort of stat on err, total internet volume/site visits? Even just extrapolating from sample data or something? Or is that simply technologically impossible because of the sheer scope?

0 Replies

"shrill and paranoid..." = blaming newbies...and, saying the site is going to ****.

I don't want to be classified as someone who said or thought that. Your comment and indirect reference to me was misleading.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

(What I also dont like is these people who've kinda, over years of posting on board type things, developed this fictitious type of made-up colloquial English thats nothing like anyone actually speaks..)

I'm not sure what you mean there nimh, can you give an example? Not of the person, but the type of writing?

0 Replies

Craven- Thanks for the "heads up". I am certainly looking forward to A2K in its next incarnation.

I have noticed two things about my thread.

It HAS gotten quite a bit of play, which is gratifying.

There are very few relative newbies on this thread. It would be interesting to know how THEY are perceiving this site, as someone who never knew what was.

As for me, in the interim, I had joined a couple of other sites that were more narrowly focused. One, which was a site for the non-religious, often was so puerile, that it harkened back to those dark days of my post-adolescence. I tired of it very quickly.

The other, a site which discussed different aspects of "Brokeback Mountain" was interesting, but I soon tired of the Johnny-one-note aspect of it. I also did not have the same emotional atttachment to the film as some, so after I had said my piece, and got to understand the impact that it was making on some people, (which WAS fascinating), I found that I no longer had anything more to say on the subject.

0 Replies

I love this place. What's the problem?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

"shrill and paranoid..." = blaming newbies...and, saying the site is going to ****.

I don't want to be classified as someone who said or thought that. Your comment and indirect reference to me was misleading.

How the hell does someone as lowdown as you take offense so easily?

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

I love this place. What's the problem?

Problem? The problem is the ******* polar bears keep falling over and showing their naughty bits, dammit!

0 Replies

It's amazing how short is human memory.

I can see some of the old timers pontificating and complaining but they already forgot how they bashed and insulted me as a newby...

I'm not in religion but I forgive them... the inanity of human pretenses...

0 Replies

I forgot to bash you when you first arrived, Francis. Consider this my "bash". Take that. Oh, and welcome to a2k.

0 Replies

As I said, Edgar, I forgive all the oldtimers..

And thank you for the welcome.

0 Replies

Why have you forgiven the old timers? I haven't. Especially dys, reyn and BVT. They are singular poopy heads.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I don't want to be classified as someone who said or thought that. Your comment and indirect reference to me was misleading.

You take things way too personally, Lash. Literally speaking you are correct - you are one of many posters who could have been taken to be included in my general observation even though it didn't literally apply to your case in extenso - and that's why I said that I understood why you clarified, and why I clarified myself too. But I think that taking a general, be-smilied observation of stuff going on in a thread as a reference to you, personally, and getting upset over that is a tad of an overreaction. <shrugs>

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

They are singular poopy heads.

See, that's a good reason to forgive them!

0 Replies

Chai Tea wrote:

nimh wrote:
(What I also dont like is these people who've kinda, over years of posting on board type things, developed this fictitious type of made-up colloquial English thats nothing like anyone actually speaks..)

I'm not sure what you mean there nimh, can you give an example? Not of the person, but the type of writing?

Heh - I was, of course, referring to myself, to this language I tend to use in chatty threads, like I did again in that same post (combining "be battlin' with "no, sirree"..)

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Chai Tea wrote:
nimh wrote:
(What I also dont like is these people who've kinda, over years of posting on board type things, developed this fictitious type of made-up colloquial English thats nothing like anyone actually speaks..)

I'm not sure what you mean there nimh, can you give an example? Not of the person, but the type of writing?

Heh - I was, of course, referring to myself, to this language I tend to use in chatty threads, like I did again in that same post (combining "be battlin' with "no, sirree"..)

Heehee.....I knew that....guess that makes me a goddamn oldtimer....

0 Replies

Francis wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
They are singular poopy heads.

See, that's a good reason to forgive them!

I think I neglected to bash you, too Francis.

So....put 'em up.....(I believe in giving you a chance to fight back.....)

0 Replies

So why not to play a dirty game, bashing the newbies, just to give back A2K it's ancient luster :wink:

Deb, no need to fight back, bashers are barking the wrong tree...

0 Replies

Is A2K Losing Some of its Luster?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know