Just sad

> Very likely true. I use Allakhazam, and the EQ section is also
> virtually dead in comparison with the WoW section.
>
>
>
> Palindrome


To me, this post reads: "I'm cooler than you because I play WoW and you
still play EQ."
 >> Stay informed about: Just sad 

On Mon, 07 May 2007 04:49:10 GMT, "JK" <greenmini.TakeThisOut@netzero.com> wrote:

>> Very likely true. I use Allakhazam, and the EQ section is also
>> virtually dead in comparison with the WoW section.
>>
>>
>>
>> Palindrome
>
>
>To me, this post reads: "I'm cooler than you because I play WoW and you
>still play EQ."

Contrary to your masterful insight, I still play EQ, so what *you*
read into things merely proves to one and all that you're an
uninformed cretin. Any more stupendously incorrect assumptions you
wish to leap to, Chuckles?


Palindrome
 >> Stay informed about: Just sad 

On Mon, 07 May 2007 01:47:45 +0100, Schadenfreude
<schaden_freude.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 06 May 2007 17:20:03 +0100, Palindrome
><damon-AAA-nomad.RemoveThis@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>I'm not trying to start a WoW vs EQ battle (that seems to happen
>>>nicely w/o me) but I was just on vacation for 2 weeks, and when I come
>>>back there are 50 posts in the EQ newsgroup (mostly mourning the lack
>>>of posts) and 23,908 posts in the WoW newsgroup. I think the lack of
>>>posts has a little more to do with the relative popularity of the two
>>>games than it does with the death of usenet.
>>
>>Very likely true. I use Allakhazam, and the EQ section is also
>>virtually dead in comparison with the WoW section.
>
>What "EQ section" are you talking about?

Just the forums, because the subject we're talking about here is posts
made. In comparison with WoW, it's virtually dead, which, since I
still play EQ, is a bit of a shame.


Palindrome
 >> Stay informed about: Just sad 

On Mon, 07 May 2007 04:49:10 GMT, "JK" <greenmini.RemoveThis@netzero.com> wrote:

>> Very likely true. I use Allakhazam, and the EQ section is also
>> virtually dead in comparison with the WoW section.
>>
>>
>>
>> Palindrome
>
>
>To me, this post reads: "I'm cooler than you because I play WoW and you
>still play EQ."
>

To me, Palindrome's post merely points out that Schadenfreude's claim
that traffic is down in this newsgroup because people have moved to
online forums is false. I'm not seeing any reference to one game
being better or cooler than another.

*Your* post, otoh, shows a pretty deep-seated insecurity about playing
EQ. You need to just relax and enjoy your choice of MMO and not worry
about whether it's the most popular one or not.
 >> Stay informed about: Just sad 

On Mon, 07 May 2007 11:27:37 GMT, murdocj
<temp RemoveThis @mirque.delete.this.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 07 May 2007 04:49:10 GMT, "JK" <greenmini RemoveThis @netzero.com> wrote:
>
>>> Very likely true. I use Allakhazam, and the EQ section is also
>>> virtually dead in comparison with the WoW section.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Palindrome
>>
>>
>>To me, this post reads: "I'm cooler than you because I play WoW and you
>>still play EQ."
>>
>
>To me, Palindrome's post merely points out that Schadenfreude's claim
>that traffic is down in this newsgroup because people have moved to
>online forums is false. I'm not seeing any reference to one game
>being better or cooler than another.
>
>*Your* post, otoh, shows a pretty deep-seated insecurity about playing
>EQ. You need to just relax and enjoy your choice of MMO and not worry
>about whether it's the most popular one or not.

Thanks, murdocj - where the hell he gets his ideas on "what people
mean" baffles me. I thought my post favoured neither one game or the
other, too

Just as a check, I went back 20 days on both groups and (allowing for
various filters I have set up) AGE had 53 posts and WoW had 3,263, so
it's unlikely that people are moving en masse away from Usenet.



Palindrome
 >> Stay informed about: Just sad 

On Mon, 07 May 2007 13:05:56 +0100, Tony Evans
<postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

>In alt.games.everquest, Palindrome <damon-AAA-nomad.TakeThisOut@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>various filters I have set up) AGE had 53 posts and WoW had 3,263, so
>>it's unlikely that people are moving en masse away from Usenet.
>
>They are *also* moving en masse away from Usenet.
>
>Both these statements are true,
>
>WoW newsgroups get more posts then EQ ones.
>Usenet posts as a percentage of internet activity are declining.

Depends on what you mean by en masse, I suppose. They ARE moving
away, I agree, but with WoW having 3263 posts in 20 days they aren't
moving away from that group in a hurry.




Palindrome
 >> Stay informed about: Just sad 

In alt.games.everquest, Palindrome <damon-AAA-nomad.DeleteThis@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>various filters I have set up) AGE had 53 posts and WoW had 3,263, so
>it's unlikely that people are moving en masse away from Usenet.

They are *also* moving en masse away from Usenet.

Both these statements are true,

WoW newsgroups get more posts then EQ ones.
Usenet posts as a percentage of internet activity are declining.

--
Tony Evans (ICQ : 170850)
Recommended Author : Stan Nicholls [http://www.stannicholls.com]
I drive way too fast to worry about cholesterol.
Meet the wife : http://www.darkstorm.co.uk/grete
 >> Stay informed about: Just sad 

On May 7, 10:59 pm, bizbee <tube....DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 1 May 2007 19:18:04 -0700 in
> <1178072284.367945.82....DeleteThis@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Richard
> Carpenter <rumble....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> graced the world with this thought:
>
> >11 of the 16 posts from April 4 through April 30 were pure spam (much
> >of it WoW spam, no less). It's just sad to see this in a community
> >that I enjoyed so much for so long.
>
> It used to be one of the absolutely busiest, consistent newsgroups I
> read... times move on. I have to wonder what happened to some of the
> old timers, Lokari, DT... StannMann surfaced for a while.

I still lurk. but I've found other places to board whore on. Traffic
is so far down Its hard to find stuff to comment or contribute on.

--
StanMann
 >> Stay informed about: Just sad 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Just sad 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Just sad 

On Tue, 08 May 2007 03:59:24 GMT, bizbee <tuberoo.RemoveThis@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>On 1 May 2007 19:18:04 -0700 in
><1178072284.367945.82590.RemoveThis@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Richard
>Carpenter <rumbledor.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> graced the world with this thought:
>
>>11 of the 16 posts from April 4 through April 30 were pure spam (much
>>of it WoW spam, no less). It's just sad to see this in a community
>>that I enjoyed so much for so long.

>It used to be one of the absolutely busiest, consistent newsgroups I
>read... times move on. I have to wonder what happened to some of the
>old timers, Lokari, DT... StannMann surfaced for a while.

Hi Biz - nice to see you - I always enjoyed your posts! Aye,
as you say, times move on...

As Richard says, the community sure has dwindled I really don't
think the cause is people moving away from Usenet, either, so much as
EQ is pared down to the hard-core (and sometimes paranoid, heh)
remnants of it's once huge player base. Hopefully, I would think that
with the Newsgroups accessible from Google now, that Usenet might be
enjoying a slight growth. Or at least I hope so.

I virtually never play EQ now, as, rather like this group in a way,
it's just too empty of players. Entire zones are ghost towns, which
doesn't encourage new blood. I'll give it a bit longer, but I see
that day coming when I'll be cancelling the subscription, which makes
me sad after almost 6 years, sigh.

Come on, Sony, get your fingers out!!

Palindrome
 >> Stay informed about: Just sad 

On Tue, 08 May 2007 10:12:42 +0100, Palindrome
<damon-AAA-nomad.DeleteThis@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
]remnants of it's once huge player base. Hopefully, I would think that
]with the Newsgroups accessible from Google now, that Usenet might be

Just look at the number of Yahoo EQ groups that went from 1,000 plus
posts per month down to less than 10 a year. Mostly spam.

]I virtually never play EQ now, as, rather like this group in a way,
]it's just too empty of players. Entire zones are ghost towns, which
]doesn't encourage new blood. I'll give it a bit longer, but I see

Crescent Reach and the hot zones are being touted as the place to
find most players these days.

]Come on, Sony, get your fingers out!!

They do seem to fail miserably on advertising.

JimP.
--
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://crestar.drivein-jim.net/testy/ May 5, 2007 1E AD&D blog
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ March 2, 2007: Drive-In movie theatres
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ poetry blog Mar 27, 2007
 >> Stay informed about: Just sad 

On Tue, 08 May 2007 05:33:46 -0600, D.J. <alphmoe23.RemoveThis@cableone.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 08 May 2007 10:12:42 +0100, Palindrome
><damon-AAA-nomad.RemoveThis@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>]remnants of it's once huge player base. Hopefully, I would think that
>]with the Newsgroups accessible from Google now, that Usenet might be
>
>Just look at the number of Yahoo EQ groups that went from 1,000 plus
>posts per month down to less than 10 a year. Mostly spam.

I tend to avoid anything connected with Yahoo, but I believe you,
heh.

>]I virtually never play EQ now, as, rather like this group in a way,
>]it's just too empty of players. Entire zones are ghost towns, which
>]doesn't encourage new blood. I'll give it a bit longer, but I see
>
>Crescent Reach and the hot zones are being touted as the place to
>find most players these days.

True, but even then I find "most" to be still not that many. CR is a
hell of a big step in the right direction, I think. Something for the
lowbies was lacking for far too long.

>]Come on, Sony, get your fingers out!!
>
>They do seem to fail miserably on advertising.

Heh, you said it! He who advertises, wins - a rough rule of thumb,
but one Sony seems to ignore.


Palindrome
 >> Stay informed about: Just sad