Can I make an empty original post?

 

Yes, I can.

Reply to original post.

Reply to thread.

reply to OP quoting OP.

Could you be more concise in future? It took me 4’33" to read all that.

How did you do that? I can’t seem to manage it.

tl;dr

Click on “reply” in OP. Click on quote balloon in reply box.

I can’t do it by selecting the text (there isn’t any), but if you hit “Reply” on the OP, then hit the first icon above the reply box to quote the entire post, that seems to work.

Ah, learned something new.

Now what you need to do is to spoiler that original blank post and then you will have created a thread of total futility. :rofl:

 

Summary

 

<Adopt fatherly, somewhat condescending, smug tone>
You know Pleonast, in life there are many things that one can do. But life is about more than just what we can do. It’s also about thinking about the impact on others, on the environment and so on. Often the mark of a good person is someone who doesn’t just ask themselves whether they can but also whether they should.

And I think maybe in future you might want to think about this a little more
</end smug tone>

Seems like OP already went for the smallest possible carbon footprint, but there’s always a critic.

On the more common light theme a post of pure whitespace consumes a LOT more photons and hence electrons than a post with the proper share of black pixels forming real visible letters.

@Pleonast should be ashamed of his public waste of the precious resource of Doperly electrons. The marginal contribution to AGW is simply unconscionable to an ecologically aware board such as this.

IOW: @Reimann, listen to your father; he speaks wisdom.

:wink:

Given this 'ere message board’s decades long dedication to the scientific facts I thought the above exceedingly harsh admonishment should be tested as to it’s veracity.

Hence I took the post by @LSLGuy as a picture, dropped it into Paint as monochrome bitmap and counted the black vs white pixels.

In conclusion: yes, it is true that there are LESS white pixels in a post BMP than in a blank BMP of equal area, but the question as to whether this represents A LOT is subjective, more so when the posters Doperly Electron Allocation has been wastefully expended through use of the least efficient available screen layout.

@Riemann, tell the silly old curmudgeon that photometric efficiency takes being WOKE just too far.

<Adopt fatherly, somewhat condescending, smug tone>
You know Princhester, in life there are many things that one can do. But life is about more than just what we can do. It’s also about thinking about the impact on others, on the environment and so on. Often the mark of a good person is someone who doesn’t just ask themselves whether they can but also whether they should .

And I think maybe in future you might want to think about this a little more before you post something which is only going to provoke more posts, thereby chewing up more precious electrons.
</end smug tone>

But you have failed to consider other energy expenditures.

(1) The energy required to transmit the information contained in a non-blank post.

(2) In the event that a non-blank post contains a minor irrelevant error, the energy required for 7 SDMB posters to nitpick the error, as paroxysms of neural activity convert glucose and oxygen to a greenhouse gas.

Said another way, the SDMB (and most of humanity) is just a waste of electrons all the way down.

Oh well c’est la Vie! :wink: