Grumble grumble google+ grrrrr

[bill van]

I've mentioned before that Facebook gives me more social networking than
I need and I'm not signing up with Google+.

But a friend of mine has, and he posted a bunch of travel pictures
there, and sent a notification to all of his hundreds of friends, via
email. Not sure if that's Google+ default behaviour or not.

But now all his idiot friends are hitting Reply All to post their
admiring comments. And I'm being inundated with emails from people I
don't know saying "Great pictures, John" and "Me too" about a bunch of
pictures I can't see on a network I don't want to join.

Is this typical Google+, or are my friend and/or his friends being
extraordinarily idiotic?

bill

[Gus]

"bill van" <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:billvan-575A84...@news.shawcable.net...

I found Google+ pretty annoying. Not much I could customize. I don't like
software that makes me want to conform to it, rather than vice versa.

[Tim Wright]

In a perfect world, reply all would be painful. Not slamming your penis
in a car door painful, but almost.


--
Trying to understand the behavior of some people is like trying to smell
the color nine.
Tim W

[Gus]

"Tim Wright" <tlwri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:DNqdnVbx2b7YPyvM...@supernews.com...

> In a perfect world, reply all would be painful. Not slamming your penis
> in a car door painful, but almost.

I once "replied" to an email from my boss (with some smartass comments) when
I meant to "forward" to my niece. Things with my boss went kinda downhill
after that.

One peeve I have about MS Mail and Outlook is if you hit Reply to a post, it
puts ALL newsgroups the OP posted to in automatically. And once in a while
people will cross post and I don't notice till later. So I've learned I
have to look at the Newgroups line to make sure it is just one, and the one
I wanted.

[Snidely]

bill van used his keyboard to write :

G+ has an option to send your posts by email for non-G+ friends.

The Reply-All issue would seem to be between the recipients and their
mailer. (Outlook used to default to having the Reply All button right
next to the Reply button on the toolbar; I've seen embarassing mistakes
made, akin to Gus' anecdote.)

So I don't blame G+, particularly.

BTW, one of the reasons alleged for Google's interest in Wayz is to get
someone on board who understands "social". I didn't think G+ was bad
when it first came out, but I haven't digested the latest change in the
stream presentation yet.

/dps

--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

[Gus]

"Snidely" <snide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mn.552d7dd6ba02d50d.127094@snitoo...

> The Reply-All issue would seem to be between the recipients and their
> mailer. (Outlook used to default to having the Reply All button right
> next to the Reply button on the toolbar; I've seen embarassing mistakes
> made, akin to Gus' anecdote.)

My niece had asked me if I wanted to do lunch. Which we used to do about
once a week or so. And I emailed my boss early in the day innocently asking
if it was ok taking an extra 30 minutes and work an extra 30 at the end of
the day.... Well, he was out of town and did not respond. So I did not do
it. But when he comes back, he sends me a message "You cannot change your
lunch schedule without my permission." (Even though I had before and others
in the office had and it made no difference when we took our lunch.)

So I simply "forwarded" the message to my niece saying: "WTF? I just
wanted to go to lunch with you and was going to make up the time". But it
turned out I had hit Reply (to the Boss) and not Forwarded (it to my niece).
(oops)

Well, 30 seconds later he comes huffing and puffing into the office to our
network printer and prints out the email to take to the Chief of Staff....
I think she must have laughed at him, because nothing came of that.

[Pastime]

Snidely wrote:

> bill van used his keyboard to write :
> > I've mentioned before that Facebook gives me more social networking than
> > I need and I'm not signing up with Google+.
> >
> > But a friend of mine has, and he posted a bunch of travel pictures
> > there, and sent a notification to all of his hundreds of friends, via
> > email. Not sure if that's Google+ default behaviour or not.
> >
> > But now all his idiot friends are hitting Reply All to post their
> > admiring comments. And I'm being inundated with emails from people I
> > don't know saying "Great pictures, John" and "Me too" about a bunch of
> > pictures I can't see on a network I don't want to join.
> >
> > Is this typical Google+, or are my friend and/or his friends being
> > extraordinarily idiotic?
>
> G+ has an option to send your posts by email for non-G+ friends.

Yes, and it's something you have to consciously do, not something
that's easy to do by accident.

> The Reply-All issue would seem to be between the recipients and their
> mailer. (Outlook used to default to having the Reply All button right
> next to the Reply button on the toolbar; I've seen embarassing mistakes
> made, akin to Gus' anecdote.)
>
> So I don't blame G+, particularly.
>
> BTW, one of the reasons alleged for Google's interest in Wayz is to get
> someone on board who understands "social".

There are all sorts of speculation about the Waze (note spelling)
acquisition, and I don't pretend to understand it, but this sounds
like the kind of thing that comes from people not understanding how G+
works and thinking it's a wasteland[1].

> I didn't think G+ was bad
> when it first came out, but I haven't digested the latest change in the
> stream presentation yet.

The biggest gripe is similar to one of FB's biggest - that it's too
easy to miss things other people say because they're not pushed to the
top of the stream. It's not something I've noticed, but then I don't
tend to follow anyone exhaustively anyway, and just use it as a stream
of Interesting Stuff.

[1] G+ has never been as empty as many people supposed. What happened
was that people would join up, circle a handful of people and then
wonder where all the traffic was - even our own Huey, no technical
slouch, was deriding G+ when he'd only circled a dozen or so people.
I find this baffling - would someone sign up for Twitter, follow a
handful of people and then wonder why they weren't seeing much
activity? What is it about G+ that leads even experienced people to
expect traffic to magically come their way without them doing
anything?

The reality is that G+ is now the second largest social network in
terms of active users - bigger than Twitter or Instagram or . And the
number one network (FB, of course, still by a very large margin) is
the only one of the major networks that's actually in decline.
Interesting times.
--
John

[Curmudgeon83]

"Pastime" <wsub...@tznvy.pbz> wrote in message
news:40tdr81vf19t3r1oc...@4ax.com...

> The biggest gripe is similar to one of FB's biggest - that it's too
> easy to miss things other people say because they're not pushed to the
> top of the stream. It's not something I've noticed, but then I don't
> tend to follow anyone exhaustively anyway, and just use it as a stream
> of Interesting Stuff.
>
> [1] G+ has never been as empty as many people supposed. What happened
> was that people would join up, circle a handful of people and then
> wonder where all the traffic was - even our own Huey, no technical
> slouch, was deriding G+ when he'd only circled a dozen or so people.
> I find this baffling - would someone sign up for Twitter, follow a
> handful of people and then wonder why they weren't seeing much
> activity? What is it about G+ that leads even experienced people to
> expect traffic to magically come their way without them doing
> anything?

Software (especially new software) should make life easier, not more
difficult and confusing. You mention even some tech savy people have
trouble with it. I don't like software that makes me feel stupid and forces
me to use it the way developers think I should. The fact that it does not
put new items at the top of the "stream" by default is dumb. And that you
can't customize things easily is idiotic. And that you have to dig through
help files to do basic things, is annoying and a waste of time. Might as
well be using GNU social networking products.... Myspace was easier to use
than G+ is.

[N Jill Marsh]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:56:45 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
wrote:

>Is this typical Google+, or are my friend and/or his friends being
>extraordinarily idiotic?

The latter. You have to tell G+ to notify all your buddies by email,
so he did that consciously. The rest of it is probably idiotic "reply
all" behaviour from the people the original message was sent out to.

You can prevent G+ from sending you those notifications, by the way. I
never get them.


--
nj"internym here"m

Send reggae, guns & numbers.

[Pastime]

Curmudgeon83 wrote:

> "Pastime" <wsub...@tznvy.pbz> wrote in message
> news:40tdr81vf19t3r1oc...@4ax.com...
> > The biggest gripe is similar to one of FB's biggest - that it's too
> > easy to miss things other people say because they're not pushed to the
> > top of the stream. It's not something I've noticed, but then I don't
> > tend to follow anyone exhaustively anyway, and just use it as a stream
> > of Interesting Stuff.
> >
> > [1] G+ has never been as empty as many people supposed. What happened
> > was that people would join up, circle a handful of people and then
> > wonder where all the traffic was - even our own Huey, no technical
> > slouch, was deriding G+ when he'd only circled a dozen or so people.
> > I find this baffling - would someone sign up for Twitter, follow a
> > handful of people and then wonder why they weren't seeing much
> > activity? What is it about G+ that leads even experienced people to
> > expect traffic to magically come their way without them doing
> > anything?
>
> Software (especially new software) should make life easier, not more
> difficult and confusing. You mention even some tech savy people have
> trouble with it.

In what way could they have made it easier to understand? I don't
understand your point here.

Unless you mean to keep nagging people to add more people to their
circles, which I don't think anyone would welcome.

> I don't like software that makes me feel stupid and forces
> me to use it the way developers think I should. The fact that it does not
> put new items at the top of the "stream" by default is dumb.

I wouldn't say that's "dumb" - it's there for a specific reason - but
I know it doesn't work the way a great number of people would like it
to work. And I'm pretty sure it's been buggy recently, maybe still is,
where some people are not seeing some posts *at all*.

> And that you
> can't customize things easily is idiotic.

What sort of things?

> And that you have to dig through
> help files to do basic things, is annoying and a waste of time.

I don't know - I've very rarely needed to consult the help files.

> Might as
> well be using GNU social networking products....

There are GNU social networking products?

I've found this thing called GNU Social - do you mean this:

http://www.gnu.org/software/social/releases.html

I don't have a lot of faith in a project whose website has typos like
missing the semicolon from "&mdash;", but it would be interesting to
know more. It's new - is it really better than G+ already?

> Myspace was easier to use
> than G+ is.

But MySpace was a much, much more basic product than G+, and it died
because of that. People want more features than it provided, and FB
provided those features and won (despite being a disaster in terms of
usability).
--
John

[Richard R. Hershberger]

On Jun 11, 12:14 pm, Pastime <wsubc...@tznvy.pbz> wrote:
> Curmudgeon83 wrote:
> > "Pastime" <wsubc...@tznvy.pbz> wrote in message

> >news:40tdr81vf19t3r1oc...@4ax.com...
> > > The biggest gripe is similar to one of FB's biggest - that it's too
> > > easy to miss things other people say because they're not pushed to the
> > > top of the stream. It's not something I've noticed, but then I don't
> > > tend to follow anyone exhaustively anyway, and just use it as a stream
> > > of Interesting Stuff.
>
> > > [1] G+ has never been as empty as many people supposed. What happened
> > > was that people would join up, circle a handful of people and then
> > > wonder where all the traffic was - even our own Huey, no technical
> > > slouch,  was deriding G+ when he'd only circled a dozen or so people.
> > > I find this baffling - would someone sign up for Twitter, follow a
> > > handful of people and then wonder why they weren't seeing much
> > > activity? What is it about G+ that leads even experienced people to
> > > expect traffic to magically come their way without them doing
> > > anything?
>
> > Software (especially new software) should make life easier, not more
> > difficult and confusing.  You mention even some tech savy people have
> > trouble with it.
>
> In what way could they have made it easier to understand? I don't
> understand your point here.
>
> Unless you mean to keep nagging people to add more people to their
> circles, which I don't think anyone would welcome.

It does that with me, on the infrequent occasions I look at it. Then
again, I'm not sure if I actually have anyone in my circle. The last
time I looked, I couldn't find anything that tempted me to spend more
time on it. The difference with Facebook is that I friended old
college buddies and the like, then quickly figured out that virtually
nothing they post is of interest to me. I have little desire to
detail the daily trivia of my life. That and political raving seem to
be the essence of social media. I honestly don't understand the
attraction.

[Curmudgeon]

"Richard R. Hershberger" <rrh...@acme.com> wrote in message
news:2226d4af-5dd1-491a...@2g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 11, 12:14 pm, Pastime <wsubc...@tznvy.pbz> wrote:

> Unless you mean to keep nagging people to add more people to their
> circles, which I don't think anyone would welcome.

It does that with me, on the infrequent occasions I look at it. Then
again, I'm not sure if I actually have anyone in my circle. The last
time I looked, I couldn't find anything that tempted me to spend more
time on it. The difference with Facebook is that I friended old
college buddies and the like, then quickly figured out that virtually
nothing they post is of interest to me. I have little desire to
detail the daily trivia of my life. That and political raving seem to
be the essence of social media. I honestly don't understand the
attraction.

---

And for me, Google+ won't die. I just checked my gmail and it says 3 people
(I know, virtually) shared posts... I deleted my G+ account weeks ago. Or so
I thought. It said it was going delete the account. Yet I keep getting an
occasional message from the help forum and other G+ messages.

[Mac]

On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:28:52 -0700 (PDT), "Richard R. Hershberger"
<rrh...@acme.com> wrote:

>It does that with me, on the infrequent occasions I look at it. Then
>again, I'm not sure if I actually have anyone in my circle. The last
>time I looked, I couldn't find anything that tempted me to spend more
>time on it. The difference with Facebook is that I friended old
>college buddies and the like, then quickly figured out that virtually
>nothing they post is of interest to me. I have little desire to
>detail the daily trivia of my life. That and political raving seem to
>be the essence of social media. I honestly don't understand the
>attraction.

It's a new way to tell the kids to get off the lawn, and a new way for
them to play on it.

[Les Albert]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:27:27 -0700, Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu>
wrote:

I'm still puzzled by their posting of photos of food.

Les

[Mac]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:42:27 -0700, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>
wrote:

A picture is worth a thousand words.

The trouble is, it's the wrong thousand words.

[Pastime]

You mean you don't think you've circled a single person? Ever?

> The last
> time I looked, I couldn't find anything that tempted me to spend more
> time on it. The difference with Facebook is that I friended old
> college buddies and the like, then quickly figured out that virtually
> nothing they post is of interest to me. I have little desire to
> detail the daily trivia of my life. That and political raving seem to
> be the essence of social media. I honestly don't understand the
> attraction.

I really don't understand this. Would you judge Facebook on how it
feels when you have zero "friends"? Twitter when you're following
nobody? Usenet if you've not subscribed to any groups?

The best approach to something like G+ is something that Google
themselves ought to be promoting, but which they never have to my
knowledge. It goes like this: think of things which interest you,
search for them and circle people and pages that post about those
things. Better still, find shared circles that people have created on
those topics. When you've got at least a hundred people/pages in your
circles - far more if possible - then it'll start to become clear what
the whole thing is about.

It strikes me that newcomers are often reluctant to circle people they
don't know - I know I was - because FB habits mean that they think of
it as a bold move. It's nothing at all like FB (thank god), but more
like a bigger, richer Twitter - follow whomever you like, and they
won't mind at all or think it any kind of declaration of friendship or
anything. There's no baggage associated with circling someone. Really.

Once you have a decent number of active people and pages in your
circles, you'll see a stream of posts, mostly on topics that interest
you. If you see dull or worthless posts, or posts you don't want to
see, uncircle those people or pages.

That's just a start, without mentioning communities or even
interaction, but I think many people don't even get that far even now.
--
John

[bill van]

In article <mthmr8tk64l877du3...@4ax.com>,

Did Boron's links to bread porn also puzzle you?

bill

[Les Albert]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:35:07 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
wrote:

I never went there, but it is not surprising because she posted
earlier in her appearance here that she has a collection dildoes.

Les

[Pastime]

Your loss, Les. Her bread photos are pretty amazing - they'd have made
even Dr Atkins say "shit, that bread looks gorgeous".
--
John

[N Jill Marsh]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:42:27 -0700, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:27:27 -0700, Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu>
>wrote:
>>On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:28:52 -0700 (PDT), "Richard R. Hershberger"
>><rrh...@acme.com> wrote:
>>>It does that with me, on the infrequent occasions I look at it. Then
>>>again, I'm not sure if I actually have anyone in my circle. The last
>>>time I looked, I couldn't find anything that tempted me to spend more
>>>time on it. The difference with Facebook is that I friended old
>>>college buddies and the like, then quickly figured out that virtually
>>>nothing they post is of interest to me. I have little desire to
>>>detail the daily trivia of my life. That and political raving seem to
>>>be the essence of social media. I honestly don't understand the
>>>attraction.

If you like Usenet, then you should be able to at least understand the
attraction of G+, which is essentially a Usenet stream that you
customize for your own interests. There doesn't need to be any
friendship or even interaction, although that tends to pop up anywhere
people congregate, on or off line.

You may not have the energy or the inclination for it, but I think if
you do Usenet then you should at least be able to summon up
appreciation for it.

>>It's a new way to tell the kids to get off the lawn, and a new way for
>>them to play on it.
>
>I'm still puzzled by their posting of photos of food.

Why? Many people are interested in cuisines and cultures, and food
pictures are wonderful bridges into old and new ones. I post very few
pictures of Jamaica anymore, except for food, and I get lots of
positive response, questions, and discussion.

[Les Albert]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:05:44 -0400, N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com>

wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:42:27 -0700, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:27:27 -0700, Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu>

>>>It's a new way to tell the kids to get off the lawn, and a new way for
>>>them to play on it.

>>I'm still puzzled by their posting of photos of food.

>Why? Many people are interested in cuisines and cultures, and food
>pictures are wonderful bridges into old and new ones. I post very few
>pictures of Jamaica anymore, except for food, and I get lots of
>positive response, questions, and discussion.

I am sure your pictures of Jamaican food are very nice, but when I say
I am puzzled by their posting of photos of food, I am not referring to
a Hands-Across-The-Sea-Tell-Me-About-Your-Culture kind of thing.
I am referring to people who live in an area posting about their
drinking evenings, and posting pictures of a pizza or maybe a plate of
spaghetti to friends who live in the same area, or who live in the
same country. The food photos are frequently posted with no
description or explanation.

My wife is the recipient of the food photos (along with 147 other
people on my niece's friend list), and she asked me about them.
Although we both thought we were up to date on cultural/social
changes, we are puzzled by the phood photo phenomenon. It seems to be
something that is occurring all over. Here are a bunch of pictures of
people taking pictures of food: http://pohtpof.tumblr.com/
http://tinyurl.com/7kzfobv

Here is an article that recently appeared in our local paper about
people in high-end restaurants taking food photos:
http://tinyurl.com/b39n6pu

And here is an article that says photographing your food may be a sign
of mental illiness: http://tinyurl.com/bmf6jbb And it's based on a
CBC study; it's Canadian so it must be right. Right?

Here's another critique of the phacebook phood photographers:
http://tinyurl.com/7kzfobv

If you enter 'people taking pictures of food' into googoo you will be
rewarded with pages of sites about the phenomenon. None of them seem
to be addressing a bridge into some other person's culture.

Les

[Mac]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:01:11 -0700, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>

wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:05:44 -0400, N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:42:27 -0700, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>
>>wrote:
>>>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:27:27 -0700, Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu>
>
>>>>It's a new way to tell the kids to get off the lawn, and a new way for
>>>>them to play on it.
>
>>>I'm still puzzled by their posting of photos of food.
>
>>Why? Many people are interested in cuisines and cultures, and food
>>pictures are wonderful bridges into old and new ones. I post very few
>>pictures of Jamaica anymore, except for food, and I get lots of
>>positive response, questions, and discussion.
>
>
>
>I am sure your pictures of Jamaican food are very nice, but when I say
>I am puzzled by their posting of photos of food, I am not referring to
>a Hands-Across-The-Sea-Tell-Me-About-Your-Culture kind of thing.
>I am referring to people who live in an area posting about their
>drinking evenings, and posting pictures of a pizza or maybe a plate of
>spaghetti to friends who live in the same area, or who live in the
>same country. The food photos are frequently posted with no
>description or explanation.

Ayup. I've often wondered if this isn't the final flowering of
Madison Ave's moronic conceit that what looks good must taste good;
the gulls have finally adopted it themselves.

[Pastime]

Les Albert wrote:

> I am referring to people who live in an area posting about their
> drinking evenings, and posting pictures of a pizza or maybe a plate of
> spaghetti to friends who live in the same area, or who live in the
> same country. The food photos are frequently posted with no
> description or explanation.

So just uncircle/unfriend the people responsible?
--
John

[Les Albert]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:31:08 +0100, Pastime <wsub...@tznvy.pbz>
wrote:

I am not a member of any of those sites. You have not read my post
carefully; it is my wife who is, and she has showed me the photographs
that puzzle both of us. Here is the part of my original posting that
you left out:
----------------------------------------------------

My wife is the recipient of the food photos (along with 147 other
people on my niece's friend list), and she asked me about them.
Although we both thought we were up to date on cultural/social
changes, we are puzzled by the phood photo phenomenon. It seems to be
something that is occurring all over. Here are a bunch of pictures of
people taking pictures of food: http://pohtpof.tumblr.com/

------------------------------------------------------

Les

[Les Albert]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 09:26:42 -0700, Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu>
wrote:

This one doesn't look so good, and probably tastes funny:

http://pohtpof.tumblr.com/image/52887215961

Les

[Pastime]

Les Albert wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:31:08 +0100, Pastime <wsub...@tznvy.pbz>
> wrote:
>
> >Les Albert wrote:
> >
> >> I am referring to people who live in an area posting about their
> >> drinking evenings, and posting pictures of a pizza or maybe a plate of
> >> spaghetti to friends who live in the same area, or who live in the
> >> same country. The food photos are frequently posted with no
> >> description or explanation.
>
> >So just uncircle/unfriend the people responsible?
>
> I am not a member of any of those sites. You have not read my post
> carefully;

I did read your post, but I didn't phrase my reply very well. I meant
it as a generic reply to "why do people post crap in my stream?" type
of complaints, rather than specifically to you (or even to Mrs
Albert).

>it is my wife who is, and she has showed me the photographs
> that puzzle both of us. Here is the part of my original posting that
> you left out:

[...]
--
John

[Greg Goss]

Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu> wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:01:11 -0700, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>

>>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:05:44 -0400, N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com>

>>>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:42:27 -0700, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>

>>>>I'm still puzzled by their posting of photos of food.
>>
>>>Why? Many people are interested in cuisines and cultures, and food
>>>pictures are wonderful bridges into old and new ones. I post very few
>>>pictures of Jamaica anymore, except for food, and I get lots of
>>>positive response, questions, and discussion.
>>
>>I am sure your pictures of Jamaican food are very nice, but when I say
>>I am puzzled by their posting of photos of food, I am not referring to
>>a Hands-Across-The-Sea-Tell-Me-About-Your-Culture kind of thing.
>>I am referring to people who live in an area posting about their
>>drinking evenings, and posting pictures of a pizza or maybe a plate of
>>spaghetti to friends who live in the same area, or who live in the
>>same country. The food photos are frequently posted with no
>>description or explanation.
>
>Ayup. I've often wondered if this isn't the final flowering of
>Madison Ave's moronic conceit that what looks good must taste good;
>the gulls have finally adopted it themselves.

Which is then adopted back by Mad Ave. One of the current high-play
commercials on one of the channels I watch features a guy taking
pictures of some new product from a fast food restaurant (A&W?
Wendy's?) to the point where he forgets to try it.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[John Mc.]

That's nothing. You should see my collection of














































stamps.

John Mc.

[Les Albert]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:26:25 -0400, "John Mc." <jo...@tdcogre.com>
wrote:

> That's nothing. You should see my collection of
>
>
>
>
>stamps.

Do you sneak off to the garage to drink and look at the stamp
pictures?

Les

[John Mc.]

XXX rated stamp pictures.

John Mc.

[Paul Madarasz]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 17:05:44 -0400, "John Mc." <jo...@tdcogre.com>

For the more, uh, *discriminating* collectors.

[N Jill Marsh]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:01:11 -0700, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>

wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:05:44 -0400, N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:42:27 -0700, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>
>>wrote:

>>>I'm still puzzled by their posting of photos of food.
>
>>Why? Many people are interested in cuisines and cultures, and food
>>pictures are wonderful bridges into old and new ones. I post very few
>>pictures of Jamaica anymore, except for food, and I get lots of
>>positive response, questions, and discussion.
>
>I am sure your pictures of Jamaican food are very nice, but when I say
>I am puzzled by their posting of photos of food, I am not referring to
>a Hands-Across-The-Sea-Tell-Me-About-Your-Culture kind of thing.
>I am referring to people who live in an area posting about their
>drinking evenings, and posting pictures of a pizza or maybe a plate of
>spaghetti to friends who live in the same area, or who live in the
>same country. The food photos are frequently posted with no
>description or explanation.

Ah, those. I am mostly insulated from those, I am pleased to report.
The food pictures in my streams are from travel, specialist technique
stuff, and two people who cook for money.

>My wife is the recipient of the food photos (along with 147 other
>people on my niece's friend list), and she asked me about them.
>Although we both thought we were up to date on cultural/social
>changes, we are puzzled by the phood photo phenomenon. It seems to be
>something that is occurring all over. Here are a bunch of pictures of
>people taking pictures of food: http://pohtpof.tumblr.com/
>http://tinyurl.com/7kzfobv
>
>Here is an article that recently appeared in our local paper about
>people in high-end restaurants taking food photos:
>http://tinyurl.com/b39n6pu
>
>And here is an article that says photographing your food may be a sign
>of mental illiness: http://tinyurl.com/bmf6jbb And it's based on a
>CBC study; it's Canadian so it must be right. Right?

No, we been demonstrating pretty spectacularly the last few months
that we maybe aren't as good as identifying what item belongs in what
category. (See: Senate Scandal)

>Here's another critique of the phacebook phood photographers:
>http://tinyurl.com/7kzfobv
>
>If you enter 'people taking pictures of food' into googoo you will be
>rewarded with pages of sites about the phenomenon. None of them seem
>to be addressing a bridge into some other person's culture.

No, I think that sort of behaviour is just part of the "look at my
perfect life" part of social media. There's always a whiff of
desperation to that.

[Mary]

On 6/16/2013 7:22 PM, N Jill Marsh wrote:

> No, I think that sort of behaviour is just part of the "look at my
> perfect life" part of social media. There's always a whiff of
> desperation to that.

Maybe so - but I think that the need that some people have to judge
people for their posts is a form of the same phenomenon. I am connected
to a lot of people whose posts seem to me to be inane or uninteresting,
but they are, for the most part, not bad people because of it, and some
are relatives or friends that I'm not interested in insulting.

So I control what shows up in my newsfeed. It's easy to do and you
don't have to make a production about it. And, yeah, I know you don't,
Jill - that wasn't a specific "you" but a general one.

And for those who really can't deal with it, why, don't participate.
But I don't understand the need to make a point of the superiority of
your own choices. Then again, I never understood the need to get snotty
about how people access Usenet either.

Mary

[Pastime]

Mary wrote:

> On 6/16/2013 7:22 PM, N Jill Marsh wrote:
>
> > No, I think that sort of behaviour is just part of the "look at my
> > perfect life" part of social media. There's always a whiff of
> > desperation to that.

Which reminds me of the assertion sometimes made, that a heavy social
media user may feel low self-esteem and even depression because they
see everyone else's "perfect lives" while their own Facebook front is
just a fabrication, a mask of perfection over a cluttered and
out-of-control life. The reality being, of course, that everyone
else's "perfect life" is that same mask.

> Maybe so - but I think that the need that some people have to judge
> people for their posts is a form of the same phenomenon. I am connected
> to a lot of people whose posts seem to me to be inane or uninteresting,
> but they are, for the most part, not bad people because of it, and some
> are relatives or friends that I'm not interested in insulting.
>
> So I control what shows up in my newsfeed. It's easy to do and you
> don't have to make a production about it. And, yeah, I know you don't,
> Jill - that wasn't a specific "you" but a general one.

When I first started spending time on Google+ I told myself that this
wasn't a place where I wanted to have discussions on politics,
religion and so on. So, for the most part at least, I just quietly
uncircle people whose posts are of the "I thank baby Jesus for my
Smith & Wesson" or "send 'em all back to $COUNTRY where they belong"
variety. Those who post offensive stuff (jokes, or worse, about
violence against women being a major category of that) I will mute at
the same time just in case.

So, my G+ stream is not a reflection of society at large, nor do I
want it to be, and nor do I at any time believe it to be. In fact,
it's like a Pandora of writing, photography and so on - I've tuned it
precisely to my tastes and the good stuff keeps coming. Fuck reality,
there's more than enough of that in the news.

All of these has been a considered, deliberate and sometimes difficult
change in personal behaviour. It sometimes takes great strength to
close an offensive post and quietly uncircle the perp, rather than to
wade in and comment vociferously.

> And for those who really can't deal with it, why, don't participate.
> But I don't understand the need to make a point of the superiority of
> your own choices. Then again, I never understood the need to get snotty
> about how people access Usenet either.

Well, you would say that, you Thunderbird user, you! We Agent users
just *know* our choice is infinitely better.
--
John

[Dover Beach]

N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5elsr8ltndi2mnqim...@4ax.com:

> Ah, those [random food pictures]. I am mostly insulated from those, I

> am pleased to report. The food pictures in my streams are from travel,
> specialist technique stuff, and two people who cook for money.
>

My stepson has never posted anything to any form of social media. His
girlfriend is usually pretty good about posting sensible pictures -- a
bunch of friends out sailing, a bunch of friends out rock climbing,
various selfies of her and visiting friends. The other day she posted
one of herself and her friend doing pudding shots. I decided that
pudding shots must really diminish your common sense.

[John Mc.]

As long as we all can look down our noses at GG users.

John Mc.

[Gus]

"John Mc." <Jo...@tdcogre.com> wrote in message
news:1454950609393166446.8...@news.eternal-september.org...

I feel sorry for GG users. I used it for a few months a couple years ago,
and do sporadically.... Even a ng reader like OE is infinitely better (to
me).

[BillTurlock]

On 17 Jun 2013 12:57:33 GMT, Dover Beach <moon.b...@mail.com>
wrote:

> The other day she posted
>one of herself and her friend


>doing pudding shots.

I do not understand your crazy moon-man talk.

[Les Albert]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 20:22:38 -0400, N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:01:11 -0700, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>
>wrote:

>>If you enter 'people taking pictures of food' into googoo you will be
>>rewarded with pages of sites about the phenomenon. None of them seem
>>to be addressing a bridge into some other person's culture.

>No, I think that sort of behaviour is just part of the "look at my
>perfect life" part of social media. There's always a whiff of
>desperation to that.

"Look at my perfect life" might be just "look at my life". Many
people are not good at expressing themselves in writing so they send
pictures. There was an article in Sunday's NY Times titled, "Facebook
Made Me Do It", by Jenna Wortham. It's not about the food photos, but
in the article she says something that probably is the reason for the
food pictures:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our growing collective compulsion to document our lives and share
them online, combined with the instant gratification that comes from
seeing something you are doing or experiencing get near-immediate
approval from your online peers ... We are, in other words, one
another’s virtual enablers.".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The high-end restaurant food photographers might be doing it to show
off, rather than seeking approval.

The entire article is at http://tinyurl.com/l338j46 and is about the
raunchy pictures of themselves that people post on social media.

Les
(Pee po belly bum drawers)

[Snidely]

On Jun 17, 5:59 am, John Mc. <J...@tdcogre.com> wrote:
> Pastime <wsubc...@tznvy.pbz> wrote:

> > Mary wrote:

> >> But I don't understand the need to make a point of the superiority of
> >> your own choices.  Then again, I never understood the need to get snotty
> >> about how people access Usenet either.
>
> > Well, you would say that, you Thunderbird user, you! We Agent users
> > just *know* our choice is infinitely better.
>
> As long as we all can  look down our noses at GG users.

I can't.

/dps
--
The picture is of course from the wonderful German movie _The Lives of
Others_. If you have seen it, you'll immediately understand why this
image comes to mind. -- James Fallows, theAtlantic.com

[Mac]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:46:16 -0700, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>
wrote:

>(Pee po belly bum drawers)

You can do such a lot with a wompom.

[Hactar]

In article <XnsA1E246D8CED55mo...@130.133.4.11>,

Are those like Jello shots?

> must really diminish your common sense.

--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
LIBRA: A big promotion is just around the corner for someone
much more talented than you. Laughter is the very best medicine,
remember that when your appendix bursts next week. -- Weird Al

[Dover Beach]

ebenZ...@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote in news:tcb49a-...@pc.home:

> In article <XnsA1E246D8CED55mo...@130.133.4.11>,
> Dover Beach <moon.b...@mail.com> wrote:
>> N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:5elsr8ltndi2mnqim...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > Ah, those [random food pictures]. I am mostly insulated from
>> > those, I am pleased to report. The food pictures in my streams are
>> > from travel, specialist technique stuff, and two people who cook
>> > for money.
>>
>> My stepson has never posted anything to any form of social media.
>> His girlfriend is usually pretty good about posting sensible pictures
>> -- a bunch of friends out sailing, a bunch of friends out rock
>> climbing, various selfies of her and visiting friends. The other day
>> she posted one of herself and her friend doing pudding shots. I
>> decided that pudding shots
>
> Are those like Jello shots?
>

Yes. Except pudding.

[Snidely]

Dover Beach scribbled something on Monday the 6/17/2013:

I first read it as [photographic] shots of puddings.

Both versions may lead to your conclusion.

/dps

--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

[bill van]

In article <mn.8d477dd641899b98.127094@snitoo>,

Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dover Beach scribbled something on Monday the 6/17/2013:
> > ebenZ...@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote in news:tcb49a-...@pc.home:
> >
> >> In article <XnsA1E246D8CED55mo...@130.133.4.11>,
> >> Dover Beach <moon.b...@mail.com> wrote:
> >>> N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>> news:5elsr8ltndi2mnqim...@4ax.com:
> >>>
> >>>> Ah, those [random food pictures]. I am mostly insulated from
> >>>> those, I am pleased to report. The food pictures in my streams are
> >>>> from travel, specialist technique stuff, and two people who cook
> >>>> for money.
> >>>
> >>> My stepson has never posted anything to any form of social media.
> >>> His girlfriend is usually pretty good about posting sensible pictures
> >>> -- a bunch of friends out sailing, a bunch of friends out rock
> >>> climbing, various selfies of her and visiting friends. The other day
> >>> she posted one of herself and her friend doing pudding shots. I
> >>> decided that pudding shots
> >>
> >> Are those like Jello shots?
> >
> > Yes. Except pudding.
> >
> >>> must really diminish your common sense.
>
> I first read it as [photographic] shots of puddings.
>
> Both versions may lead to your conclusion.
>

My recollection from my hard(er)-drinking yute is that sweet alcoholic
drinks - think Southern Comfort or Drambuie - if drunk to excess, would
produce a worse hangover than stuff with less sugar in it.

bill

[Peter Ward]

Mary says...

>
> On 6/16/2013 7:22 PM, N Jill Marsh wrote:
>
> > No, I think that sort of behaviour is just part of the "look at my
> > perfect life" part of social media. There's always a whiff of
> > desperation to that.
>
>
> Maybe so - but I think that the need that some people have to judge
> people for their posts is a form of the same phenomenon.

Sometimes it is the post itself looking for approval:
http://www.eatliver.com/i.php?n=10756

--

Peter, from outside the asylum

I'm an alien
email: usenet at peterward dot adsl24 dot co dot uk
You know you're getting old when the barber says "Trim your eyebrows,
sir?"
- Ben Newsam

[N Jill Marsh]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 21:53:46 -0500, Mary <mrfea...@a0l.com> wrote:

>On 6/16/2013 7:22 PM, N Jill Marsh wrote:
>
>> No, I think that sort of behaviour is just part of the "look at my
>> perfect life" part of social media. There's always a whiff of
>> desperation to that.
>
>
>Maybe so - but I think that the need that some people have to judge
>people for their posts is a form of the same phenomenon.

All judgment is, pretty much.

>I am connected
>to a lot of people whose posts seem to me to be inane or uninteresting,
>but they are, for the most part, not bad people because of it, and some
>are relatives or friends that I'm not interested in insulting.

And that's a very good point, and one that I think a lot of people
miss when they start up with stuff on sites like Facebook. You can't
have all the people in your life in the same room and then assume
everything is good without actual moderation, or at least I couldn't.

>So I control what shows up in my newsfeed. It's easy to do and you
>don't have to make a production about it. And, yeah, I know you don't,
>Jill - that wasn't a specific "you" but a general one.
>
>And for those who really can't deal with it, why, don't participate.
>But I don't understand the need to make a point of the superiority of
>your own choices. Then again, I never understood the need to get snotty
>about how people access Usenet either.

[N Jill Marsh]

On 17 Jun 2013 12:57:33 GMT, Dover Beach <moon.b...@mail.com>
wrote:

Jello shots have the same effect.

[BillTurlock]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:17:34 +0100, Peter Ward <ad...@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

>Mary says...
>>
>> On 6/16/2013 7:22 PM, N Jill Marsh wrote:
>>
>> > No, I think that sort of behaviour is just part of the "look at my
>> > perfect life" part of social media. There's always a whiff of
>> > desperation to that.
>>
>>
>> Maybe so - but I think that the need that some people have to judge
>> people for their posts is a form of the same phenomenon.
>
>Sometimes it is the post itself looking for approval:
>http://www.eatliver.com/i.php?n=10756

Oooh—existential self-reference!

::like::

[Mary]

On 6/17/2013 7:40 AM, Pastime wrote:

> Mary wrote:

>
>> And for those who really can't deal with it, why, don't participate.
>> But I don't understand the need to make a point of the superiority of
>> your own choices. Then again, I never understood the need to get snotty
>> about how people access Usenet either.
>
> Well, you would say that, you Thunderbird user, you! We Agent users
> just *know* our choice is infinitely better.
>

Spoken like a true believer.

Mary

[Mary]

On 6/18/2013 9:35 AM, N Jill Marsh wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 21:53:46 -0500, Mary <mrfea...@a0l.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/16/2013 7:22 PM, N Jill Marsh wrote:
>>
>>> No, I think that sort of behaviour is just part of the "look at my
>>> perfect life" part of social media. There's always a whiff of
>>> desperation to that.
>>
>>
>> Maybe so - but I think that the need that some people have to judge
>> people for their posts is a form of the same phenomenon.
>
> All judgment is, pretty much.
>
>> I am connected
>> to a lot of people whose posts seem to me to be inane or uninteresting,
>> but they are, for the most part, not bad people because of it, and some
>> are relatives or friends that I'm not interested in insulting.
>
> And that's a very good point, and one that I think a lot of people
> miss when they start up with stuff on sites like Facebook. You can't
> have all the people in your life in the same room and then assume
> everything is good without actual moderation, or at least I couldn't.

Exactly - friends, online and people I've met, relatives, co-workers,
former coworkers.....it's a varied group. I'm glad it's a varied group.
But I could easily find something to be insulted by in my newsfeed at
least daily, if I were so inclined. Or if not insulted, at least
disgusted. Ignore 'em, I say.

Mary

[Mary]

Well, if you're going to consume your booze that way, at least pudding
tastes good.

But I've never understood why people don't just drink.

Mary

[Gus]

"Les Albert" <lalb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:gguor8pri004apbva...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:05:44 -0400, N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

>>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:42:27 -0700, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>
>>wrote:

>>>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:27:27 -0700, Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu>
>

>>>>It's a new way to tell the kids to get off the lawn, and a new way for
>>>>them to play on it.
>

>>>I'm still puzzled by their posting of photos of food.
>
>>Why? Many people are interested in cuisines and cultures, and food
>>pictures are wonderful bridges into old and new ones. I post very few
>>pictures of Jamaica anymore, except for food, and I get lots of
>>positive response, questions, and discussion.
>
>
>
> I am sure your pictures of Jamaican food are very nice, but when I say
> I am puzzled by their posting of photos of food, I am not referring to
> a Hands-Across-The-Sea-Tell-Me-About-Your-Culture kind of thing.
> I am referring to people who live in an area posting about their
> drinking evenings, and posting pictures of a pizza or maybe a plate of
> spaghetti to friends who live in the same area, or who live in the
> same country. The food photos are frequently posted with no
> description or explanation.
>

> My wife is the recipient of the food photos (along with 147 other
> people on my niece's friend list), and she asked me about them.
> Although we both thought we were up to date on cultural/social
> changes, we are puzzled by the phood photo phenomenon. It seems to be
> something that is occurring all over. Here are a bunch of pictures of
> people taking pictures of food: http://pohtpof.tumblr.com/
> http://tinyurl.com/7kzfobv
>
> Here is an article that recently appeared in our local paper about
> people in high-end restaurants taking food photos:
> http://tinyurl.com/b39n6pu
>
> And here is an article that says photographing your food may be a sign
> of mental illiness: http://tinyurl.com/bmf6jbb And it's based on a
> CBC study; it's Canadian so it must be right. Right?
>

> Here's another critique of the phacebook phood photographers:
> http://tinyurl.com/7kzfobv
>

> If you enter 'people taking pictures of food' into googoo you will be
> rewarded with pages of sites about the phenomenon. None of them seem
> to be addressing a bridge into some other person's culture.
>

> Les

Using Social Media To Cover For Lack Of Original Thought
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK62I-4cuSY

[Les Albert]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:37:26 -0400, "Gus" <G...@Overton.Com> wrote:
>"Les Albert" <lalb...@aol.com> wrote

>> N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com>wrote:

>>>Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>wrote:

>Using Social Media To Cover For Lack Of Original Thought
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK62I-4cuSY

I looked at that youtube and thought it's a clever commentary, but it
reminded me of the consultants to companies in the 1960s who changed
the way companies advertised their products, and charged the companies
large sums for their ideas (for better or worse), like this guy:

http://www.peterharrington.co.uk/blog/the-birth-of-mad-men-ernest-dichter-psychoanalysis-and-consumerism/

or http://tinyurl.com/ojtowgw

Here's another web site that is a bit more descriptive of what Dichter
was advising companies about: http://tinyurl.com/olrqj3o Here is an
excerpt:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Examining his research and twentieth-century food ads, however,
reveals all of the ways these gendered and sexual attributes were
concocted and manipulated. From his insights into Rice Krispies as a
"bubbling, vivacious, young woman" to his advice on how to masculinize
fish, this study analyzes Dichter's pronouncements about the sex of
food and his efforts to create the illusion of inevitability.

Food advertisements and Ernest Dichter's writings contain a surprising
history of concocted and encouraged associations between food and sex
roles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Companies were falling all over themselves to get him to consult with
them. Today it's some guy advising them about web interaction.

Les