Sheesh, I need to read every thread I can find and get my antlers bigger, apparently… Are we considering our posts our progeny? Does this mean that, e.g., Colibri is causing spontaneous generation of Dopers by sheer number of posts? Or perhaps immortalizing oneself in glowing prose is sufficient.
I prefer to think of myself as the galapagos tortoise of posters - good longevity, thick skin, slow to react but sure in my movement, graceful at depth - just get those freakin’ little kids off my back or I’ll take that camera and stuff it up your posterior!! :rolleyes: Of course, this metaphor does wreck the hell out of the resiliency concept. Hmm…
Just remember, quality DOES count more than frequency, or as my journalist friend says, column inches only matter to gossip writers. So to speak. [sub]SO THERE![/sub]
I suppose the metaphor carries over to lurkers who never start threads and only post on others OP’s. We would be Viruses, or Prions. We are not truly life forms that reproduce, but simply parasites living off of others who post.
Would people that say “me too” be vultures or fungi?
How bout annoying people not annoying enough to be banned?
Chiggers?
Me? You’ve been waiting for me to notice you?
Little old me?
::blushing::
I never realised (honestly) that anyone paid much attention to me.
I’m mostly one of those me too posters and I have terrible spelling skills. It’s a good thing nobody can see my handwritting.
I like your creativity smegmum V. My reaction though is that “parasite” has far too negative of a connotation for my taste… I’d characterize the dopers who don’t post as something akin to the South American parrot arriving in the US as a consequence of being blown off course by a storm… the parrot continues to wander around but doesn’t reproduce (using the metaphor of post counts as a measure of a species population as noted in the OP).
“Me too” posters are maybe… chameleons?.. a population that is hard to see.
Vultures are more like the opportunistic predators that prey upon the weak, and only feed off of other’s offspring (posts).
Chiggers are perfect!!! Well done.
Yep. 
I’d like to suggest another category of lifeform (of which I am one): the (more-or-less) intelligent alien invader. This is the longtime lurker who suddenly bursts forth with a short familiarization/learning curve, acting more or less like a longtime poster, and trying to blend in – rather like the alien baddies in the '80’s made-for-TV series “V”, only benign and with nicer eating habits.
The Scrivener, you and I are apparently of the same species! I too am a longtime lurker who is trying to blend in. Nice to meet you. Another possible “blending in” analogy is to the Pod People in Invasion of the Body Snatchers… when I saw this as a kid I really had a hard time going to sleep!
Emphasis, mine.
I can disprove this in 3 sentences.
But first, did you know that the word alpha comes from the Greek language? Many useful sites exist about the Greek language. Have you tried looking alpha up on Google?
Fenris
To Algernon, a virtual bouquet of spring daisies. [Flowers for Algernon!]
And to Fenris, a stinkwort. Fer Crissakes, Fenris, the phrase “alpha male” has enjoyed a trendy currency for several years now. Without parsing the semantics, it’s basically a '80’s[?]-'90’s update of the “BMOC” from the early-mid 20th C. Get a grip. Preferably using an oppositional thumb… :rolleyes:
Moderator Shotgun Loaded - Safety On:
Cool it.
[Edited by UncleBeer on 11-07-2001 at 05:26 PM]
What? Oh, don’t mind me, I’m the whoosh fairy.
WHOOOOSH!
Ahem. Notice that just after offering to post his three sentence refutation, Fenris posted a three sentence paragraph?
A paragraph, perhaps, remnicent of a certain poster who has thousands of posts, all very similar to those three sentences; a history, essentially, of drive-by posts that apply only tangentially to the topic.
He was making a point, not seriously complaining about the use of alpha.
–John
Not a very good impression, actually, because Fenris’s sentences contained more-or-less correct information.
Well, I for one am not going to mate with any females who think a high post count equals big antlers.
However, high post counts require a few things:
- Ability to type fast (certainly slow typers would have low counts)
- Ability to read. Got to read posts to see what’s been covered & what people are talking about.
- An opinion on just about anything & everything gives you something to write about.
- Maturity & able to obey rules. Lots of people with high post counts aren’t on the board anymore because they posted things they should not have. A lot of them seemed to be very well liked too. Yeah, I got chewed out a few times myself from the mods. tsk.
As for:
“longing for the day when a poster is judged solely by the content of their posts”
That seems pretty silly to me because to become a moderator you are judged by the content of the posts you have made before. That content is used to find potential moderators, or so it seemed in their hunt for new mods.
A thousand pardons. Well, a couple, anyway.
It actually did occur to me that Fenris was being ironic, but 1) that’s sometimes hard to tell (it’s a virtual puzzle!) and 2) “Irony is dead,” or so sayeth the professional tongue-waggers. First it was Jebediah [?] Purdy, then the failures of the Seinfeldian spinoffs [maybe not true spinoffs, but you know what I mean], and then WTC.
But basically, once I thought of the dig, I had to use it. Again, sorry.
Please, please let me in on the open secret: who exactly were you referring to?
Here’s a poster who got banned in just 6 posts. (The OP.) It’s the equivalent of a baby turtle getting eaten by a predator immediately upon entering the sea.
Am I the only one whose 1st thought was “irony”?
Nobody has answered my question yet!
Ok, Kricket, I’ll answer. Yes, I definitely think he’s a keeper. 
As to the OP: Interesting hypothesis, algernon <love your username!>, although as as been pointed out by others <does that make me a chameleon?>, your theory has more holes in it than my colander. 
As to the subtle<ok, not so subtle> underplay going in here, I shall err on the side of caution and say little. Except to say if you are interested in who I think was being referred to in Fenris’ post, my email addy is in my profile.
Fenris, Yue Han, Colibri, and weirddave: ROFLMAO
So much irony here I could almost stop taking my iron pills. Well done!
Since handy himself has offered his analysis on the qualities of a prolific poster, in keeping with the OP I think it may be worthwhile to analyze his own posting characteristics in evolutionary and ecological terms.
Under ideal conditions, organisms tend to obey the logistic model of population growth:
dN/dt = rN (K - N)/K
where N = population size, r = the intrinsic reproductive rate, and K = carrying capacity, or the maximum sustainable population size (in terms of biomass) of a particular organism in a given environment.
It has been empirically determined that many features of life histories are correlated. In particular, on the principle that “Jack-of-all-trades is master of none,” having a high reproductive rate is usually incompatible with having a high carrying capacity. Two contrasting evolutionary/ecological strategies have been identified, known as r-selected (selected for high reproductive rate) and K-selected (selected for high carrying capacity).
Typical characteristics of r-selected organisms:
[ul]
[li]small in size[/li][li]high reproductive rate: many small offspring are produced, and the energy used to make each offspring is lowno recognition of Opal[/li][li]no parental care[/li][li]poorly defended against predators (e.g. no spines, horns, or toxic chemicals)[/li][li]often live in ephemeral habitats such as treefall gaps or vernal pools, hence have high dispersal or colonizing ability[/li][/ul]
Typical characteristics of K-selected organisms:
[ul]
[li]large in size[/li][li]low reproductive rate: few large offspring are produced, and the energy used to make each offspring is high[/li][li]Hi Opal![/li][li]extended parental care[/li][li]well-defended against predators (e.g. spines, horns, toxic chemicals)[/li][li]often habitat specialists closely adapted to specific environments, hence dispersal ability may be low[/li][/ul]
Good examples of r-selected organisms are field mice, fruit flies, and bacteria. Good examples of K-selected organisms are rhinos, apes, and giant pandas.
The handy is an excellent example of an r-selected organism. A typical individual is quite small, no more than two or three lines. The rate of production is extremely high, sometimes approaching the physical limit imposed by the Board, that is, one every sixty seconds (and thereby out-doing the most prolific bacteria). Very little energy is apparently expended in producing each one. There is virtually no parental care: most handies are simply deposited in a thread and then left to their fate. If attacked by thread predators, no attempt is made at defense. However, since there is a never-ending supply of new threads, this is unimportant: handies are extremely good colonizers, and many threads will be seen to contain one or two (although rarely more than that). Handies are not specialized in terms of habitat, and are found in almost every forum. However, due to their lack of defense mechanisms they are apparently unable to germinate in the Pit.
[Disclaimer: This analysis is presented as a matter of scientific interest only. No offense is meant either to handy or to fruit flies.]
Colibri, a terrific demonstration of your huge antlers! I stand up and applaud your well-reasoned, creative, and witty analysis!!! (with examples even) BRAVO.
[note to self… now why didn’t I think of that?]
When I was a newbie I thought big post counts didn’t matter. But as I approach 1000 posts, I realize true hipness lies in a big post count 
. But even if it’s big, how you use it is still pretty damn important.
DaLovin’ Dj