Even I have to admit this is hard to believe, upon reading some of the linked threads.
Did you think us too stupid to actually click on the links? Because none of them seem to indicate posting just for the sake of post-padding. You do realize there’s a difference between sarcasm, seriousness, mocking and good-natured fun, don’t you?
Yes, I’m quite aware of the difference and, as I said above, I just don’t believe him. You may take him for his word but I do not.
Fine. But do you also understand the difference between “post-padding” and “believing a post count has a value greater than 0”? Because every link you’ve provided only shows that Lobsang believes (and argues for) the second, not the first. You’ve been prattling on about a strawman.
What, you think they’re going to waste one of their precious posts to post in THIS thread to let you know? Pshaw!
I admit to not having followed all 20, but the 15 or so that I clicked on simply do not indicate a genuine intent to pad my count. They merely defend the post count as a visible statistic, joke about it, joke about it again (perhaps a year later), defend it again. If you don’t believe that then there’s nothing more I can say.
If it is annoying. I am sorry. I’ve not mentioned it in the other 10,020 or so posts. the vast majority of which I like to think were genuinely motivated posts.
To accuse me of post count padding, and to challenge my assertion that few (including me) do it, based on such a tiny tiny percentage of posts is ludicrous. But if I mention it too often then I will try to be mindful in future and keep my trap shut about it. OK?
What? I could’ve sworn you said you got a free coffee mug and t-shirt when you hit 20,000!
You expect me to remember way back then? 
Fuck off. I (and I am sure others) spend a lot of time here; I typically spend between 1 and 2 hours / day reading the dope. I just don’t feel like adding a random thought/drive by comment/WAG to every thread I open.
Just because some posters like to open threads they have little expertise in and then clog them up with their garbage doesn’t mean we all have to.
One can go on and on and say how meaningful the post counts are and for some of the major contributors that may be true. But let’s make sure the balance is noted with one word: Handy.
Except that Lobsang openly argues that having a high post count (or early join date) is desirable, not just “greater than 0” or, as he says, indicative of an idiot. Seems like a valid reason for him to pad his count, don’t you think? Who would want to wear rags and be thought a pauper when they can cop a suit and be considered a proper gentleman?
I never said desireable. I said meaningful. Indicative of a set of probable properties of the doper in question.
Eyer8 I didn’t mean to suggest that low post counts inidacte less time spent here. I merely suggest that a high post count provides assurance that a doper has spent time here, while a low post count and hight period of membership cannot assure this. A person can have one post and have spent every day of their life (during the period) here, while a different person with a post count of 1 may have spent 3 minutes of that period here.
On the other hand. A high post count proves that either the person is posting ridiculously fast, or that they spend a heck of a lot of time here. The latter being more likely.
And Aesirnon, since you are unwilling to back down, I take the oportunity to mention that if I were to implement the same search as you apparently did on me, and then use the same integrity as you, I am just as justified in accusing you of being unable to shut up about your post count. (Namely that you pretend to be ashamed of it)
All I admit to not being one of the entertaining/clever/knowledgable dopers. Most of my posts are motivated by the same reasons that eleanorigby suggest - that I have a lot of time on my hands, and some people I like to talk to. I enjoy posting here. I enjoy the quality not the quantity. I’ve been here 3 years That’s addequate time for a person with lots of time on their hands and a desire to spend that time here to rack up over ten thousand posts.
I remain resentful of your accusations.
I’m right there with you Eyer8. I spend more time here reading threads then I would like to admit to, but I almost never post. I am one of those people who knows a little about a lot of things, but I don’t know a lot about any one thing. I could post a lot of “me too’s” or “what he said’s”, but that seems like a waste of everyone’s time.
Well, obviously a high post count in combination with with an early registration date means the most, but there is no true value in one’s participation if one did not witness both** the discussions revolving about objects falling from the backs of pickup trucks and the definitive Mustang vs Spitfire debate.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I arrived AFTER the Mustang/Spitfire donneybrook.)
Maybe I’m missing something here, but I don’t understand why some people want to have as high a post count as possible. Do you win some sort of prize? If it’s just for the purpose of saying, “I’ve got more than you do”, then I say :rolleyes:.
Heh. Nice coding, Old Timer.
I’m sorry, but bullshit. Lobsang is arguing that a high post count reflects one of a very few select things: (a) you know how things are run on the SDMB because you’ve managed to stay active and not get banned, (b) the poster has spent considerable time on the Dope (as there are plenty of '99 registrees who have either long since departed or at least taken a break) or © they engage in post-padding.
You’ve decided to accuse him of ©, despite not being able to provide any evidence of it. You’ve failed to demonstrate any working knowledge of the difference between “post-padding” and “posting prolificly”, and in the meantime, have managed to sling enough mud to build a small Pueblo village.
Lobsang may have rubbed you the wrong way in the past, and may continue to do so. Don’t know, don’t care. But you’re acting like a Grade-A asshole in this thread, especially with your bullshit links.
Yes, you’re missing just about most of what I’ve said in this thread.
Having as high a post count as possible shows that a doper has probably spent a lot of time here. But it’s the time spent here, and not the post count that is valued. I’m not the type of person to gloat about post counts. All I am arguing for is that post counts are not simply ‘meaningless’. They mean something.
And I believe it is human (perhaps weakness) nature to make a fuss about milestones of any kind (“hey, I’ve got 5000 CDs!”, or “Wow, my mileage just ticked over the 50,000 mark!”)
They must mean something to someone. Otherwise the programmers at vBulletin wouldn’t have included it in the software.
So does weight. But in absence of further context, it’s pretty irrelevant data. Better to celebrate something more meaningful, like citing vintage years for RC cola, or the move to make urination a Nobel Prize category. Far more significant, IMHO, than celebrating post counts.