On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 03:34:55 -0800, Julie Bove wrote:


> I happen to like FB. I can get the word out to all of my friends at
> once. Might not apply to them but if I'm in a hurry, I can do that a lot
> faster than calling or emailing them all.

<snort>

Calling them maybe - but emailing them all at once - not. (Yes, you can do
that.)

Anyway Julie, love ya posts. Keep 'em coming, please ;-)

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 03:37:07 -0800, Julie Bove wrote:

> I was in a waiting room of a Drs. office once. A man and his teenaged
> son were there with their smart phones. The dad freaked because he
> couldn't get FB to load. Then he turned to the son and said, "Is
> Myspace working?"
> It was.

<double-snork!>

Too funny.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> I happen to like FB. I can get the word out to all of my friends at once.
> Might not apply to them but if I'm in a hurry, I can do that a lot faster
> than calling or emailing them all.

Or you can email them all with one email using CC.

I'm in contact with 3 friends everyday and we use the mailing list
concept. Every email is addressed to all.

G.

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> If it weren't for FB, I wouldn't hear from some of my relatives.

I don't care to hear from any of my relatives except immediate family.
Most relative are strangers to me, the only bond is the dna
connection.

G.

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> Okay then. Don't say that you weren't warned! If your pins all go away
> you'd be SOL because that's how you save stuff.

Very true too. You should always have a backup ongoing. Websites, etc
have a habit of going away eventually.

G.

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 11:53:13 +0000, Janet wrote:

> In article >, cathy1234
> @mailinator.com says...

>> Mind you, there might have been one of those "Anybody heard from XXXX?"
>> threads, to which certain posters might have replied, "I hope she's not
>> dead" <yeah, right> while others would have said, "Hope she is dead and
>> good riddance". Then somebody would have googled and come to the
>> conclusion I *was* dead and posted something to that effect....
>
> That's right! I remember the flame wars about whether to send a wreath
> that looked like a cake, or a cake that looked like a wreath, and
> whether candles on it would be just plain tacky at a cremation.

I think the cake that looked like a wreath would have been just dandy,
because my family would have had a good excuse to be there - and the one
friend I have would have enjoyed munching it too. But I'd have preferred
they left off the candles, cos yeah, that would indeed have been tacky
(IMHO, of course).

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 08:30:38 -0400, lucretiaborgia wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 09:51:48 +0200, ChattyCathy
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:41:19 -0800, sf wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Is word of mouth the point you thought I was missing? <shrug> So
>>> what?
>>
>>No, the point you are missing is that not everyone on the planet would
>>miss FB or other social networks if they ceased to exist. But clearly
>>you would.
>
> And it would appear one is not permitted to hold an opposite view for
> some reason.

So it would seem; might have something to do with the fact that she's a
retired school teacher - where her word was law... Kinda like retired
military officers who go to their graves being referred to as "The
General" (or whatever rank they were when they retired) by their family
and friends. But, of course that's just a theory.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On 1/26/2014 2:40 AM, ChattyCathy wrote:

> Well, I didn't read or 'share' anything with this NG for a couple of years
> and the world didn't stop turning for me - and I'm willing to bet nobody
> gave a damn.

You'd be wrong. Just sayin.
>
> Mind you, there might have been one of those "Anybody heard from XXXX?"
> threads, to which certain posters might have replied, "I hope she's not
> dead" <yeah, right> while others would have said, "Hope she is dead and
> good riddance". Then somebody would have googled and come to the
> conclusion I *was* dead and posted something to that effect.... Then, more
> than likely it would have morphed into a nice flame war about 'speaking
> ill of the dead' and/or what a moron/saint I was <cough> - which might
> have been cause for some entertainment value here - for a couple of hours,
> anyway.

(laugh) Nothing like that happened. Regarding you, I mean.
It's exactly what happened to one person, unfortunately.

nancy

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/26/2014 2:40 AM, ChattyCathy wrote:
>
>> Well, I didn't read or 'share' anything with this NG for a couple of
>> years
>> and the world didn't stop turning for me - and I'm willing to bet nobody
>> gave a damn.
>
> You'd be wrong. Just sayin.
>>
>> Mind you, there might have been one of those "Anybody heard from XXXX?"
>> threads, to which certain posters might have replied, "I hope she's not
>> dead" <yeah, right> while others would have said, "Hope she is dead and
>> good riddance". Then somebody would have googled and come to the
>> conclusion I *was* dead and posted something to that effect.... Then,
>> more
>> than likely it would have morphed into a nice flame war about 'speaking
>> ill of the dead' and/or what a moron/saint I was <cough> - which might
>> have been cause for some entertainment value here - for a couple of
>> hours,
>> anyway.
>
> (laugh) Nothing like that happened. Regarding you, I mean.
> It's exactly what happened to one person, unfortunately.

Aye she was mentioned fairly often


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 08:59:45 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:

> On 1/26/2014 2:40 AM, ChattyCathy wrote:
>
>> Well, I didn't read or 'share' anything with this NG for a couple of
>> years and the world didn't stop turning for me - and I'm willing to bet
>> nobody gave a damn.
>
> You'd be wrong. Just sayin.

Nancy, you are simply one of the nicest people I've ever come across on
Usenet - and I love your sense of humor too. I've never seen you post a
bad word about anybody here - and of course you've shared more than a few
great recipes too - so thank you!


>> Mind you, there might have been one of those "Anybody heard from XXXX?"
>> threads, to which certain posters might have replied, "I hope she's not
>> dead" <yeah, right> while others would have said, "Hope she is dead and
>> good riddance". Then somebody would have googled and come to the
>> conclusion I *was* dead and posted something to that effect.... Then,
>> more than likely it would have morphed into a nice flame war about
>> 'speaking ill of the dead' and/or what a moron/saint I was <cough> -
>> which might have been cause for some entertainment value here - for a
>> couple of hours, anyway.
>
> (laugh) Nothing like that happened. Regarding you, I mean. It's
> exactly what happened to one person, unfortunately.

More than one poster, IIRC - but as lucretia mentioned, "that's Usenet for
you" (or words to that effect).

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 14:13:12 +0000, Ophelia wrote:



> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 1/26/2014 2:40 AM, ChattyCathy wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I didn't read or 'share' anything with this NG for a couple of
>>> years
>>> and the world didn't stop turning for me - and I'm willing to bet
>>> nobody gave a damn.
>>
>> You'd be wrong. Just sayin.
>>>
>>> Mind you, there might have been one of those "Anybody heard from
>>> XXXX?" threads, to which certain posters might have replied, "I hope
>>> she's not dead" <yeah, right> while others would have said, "Hope she
>>> is dead and good riddance". Then somebody would have googled and come
>>> to the conclusion I *was* dead and posted something to that effect....
>>> Then, more
>>> than likely it would have morphed into a nice flame war about
>>> 'speaking ill of the dead' and/or what a moron/saint I was <cough> -
>>> which might have been cause for some entertainment value here - for a
>>> couple of hours,
>>> anyway.
>>
>> (laugh) Nothing like that happened. Regarding you, I mean. It's
>> exactly what happened to one person, unfortunately.
>
> Aye she was mentioned fairly often

Thanks Miz O. But if you hadn't posted anything for a while, I'm still
fairly sure you'd be missed a lot more than me. ;-)

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 03:32:46 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>The dance studio has a website but... They don't run it. They hire someone
>to do that for them. If they need to get the word out quickly to us all,
>they use email and Facebook. Facebook is quicker, I'm sure!

But what if you don't happen to have your computer turned on at all
times?

Doris

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
news
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 14:13:12 +0000, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
>
>> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 1/26/2014 2:40 AM, ChattyCathy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, I didn't read or 'share' anything with this NG for a couple of
>>>> years
>>>> and the world didn't stop turning for me - and I'm willing to bet
>>>> nobody gave a damn.
>>>
>>> You'd be wrong. Just sayin.
>>>>
>>>> Mind you, there might have been one of those "Anybody heard from
>>>> XXXX?" threads, to which certain posters might have replied, "I hope
>>>> she's not dead" <yeah, right> while others would have said, "Hope she
>>>> is dead and good riddance". Then somebody would have googled and come
>>>> to the conclusion I *was* dead and posted something to that effect....
>>>> Then, more
>>>> than likely it would have morphed into a nice flame war about
>>>> 'speaking ill of the dead' and/or what a moron/saint I was <cough> -
>>>> which might have been cause for some entertainment value here - for a
>>>> couple of hours,
>>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> (laugh) Nothing like that happened. Regarding you, I mean. It's
>>> exactly what happened to one person, unfortunately.
>>
>> Aye she was mentioned fairly often
>
> Thanks Miz O. But if you hadn't posted anything for a while, I'm still
> fairly sure you'd be missed a lot more than me. ;-)

HUH I reckon some would have a party if I died!!! You are forgetting your
website! There were often comments on how we couldn't use it Now
all is well with the world again)

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 1/26/2014 9:51 AM, ChattyCathy wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 08:59:45 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> On 1/26/2014 2:40 AM, ChattyCathy wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I didn't read or 'share' anything with this NG for a couple of
>>> years and the world didn't stop turning for me - and I'm willing to bet
>>> nobody gave a damn.
>>
>> You'd be wrong. Just sayin.
>
> Nancy, you are simply one of the nicest people I've ever come across on
> Usenet - and I love your sense of humor too. I've never seen you post a
> bad word about anybody here - and of course you've shared more than a few
> great recipes too - so thank you!

How nice of you to say that! And I know that there are people
laughing themselves into a coma at the idea I was all that nice.
Heh.

>> (laugh) Nothing like that happened. Regarding you, I mean. It's
>> exactly what happened to one person, unfortunately.
>
> More than one poster, IIRC - but as lucretia mentioned, "that's Usenet for
> you" (or words to that effect).

Not for the faint of heart. For sure.

nancy

On 1/26/2014 10:25 AM, Doris Night wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 03:32:46 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>> The dance studio has a website but... They don't run it. They hire someone
>> to do that for them. If they need to get the word out quickly to us all,
>> they use email and Facebook. Facebook is quicker, I'm sure!
>
> But what if you don't happen to have your computer turned on at all
> times?
>
> Doris
>
Or, heaven forbid, the computer breaks?

The meat market in town sends emails about weekly specials. It's a BCC
list so I don't have to slog through a hundred email address headers to
read what's going on. I can't see how logging into Facebook would be
any faster than reading an email.

I'm only slightly irked by the fact that (for example) the cat litter I
prefer to buy moved everything from their web site to Facebook. I don't
have to re-activate my FB account to look for special offers or print
coupons. It's just the ASSumption that everyone loves FB that bugs me.
My 2 cents.

Jill

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/26/2014 9:51 AM, ChattyCathy wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 08:59:45 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/26/2014 2:40 AM, ChattyCathy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, I didn't read or 'share' anything with this NG for a couple of
>>>> years and the world didn't stop turning for me - and I'm willing to bet
>>>> nobody gave a damn.
>>>
>>> You'd be wrong. Just sayin.
>>
>> Nancy, you are simply one of the nicest people I've ever come across on
>> Usenet - and I love your sense of humor too. I've never seen you post a
>> bad word about anybody here - and of course you've shared more than a few
>> great recipes too - so thank you!
>
> How nice of you to say that! And I know that there are people
> laughing themselves into a coma at the idea I was all that nice.
> Heh.

You really are one of the nicest posters here! I never forget your
kindness in sending that rfc cookbook


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 08:25:02 -0400, wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 20:33:12 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:38:48 -0400, wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 14:07:06 -0800, sf > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:47:06 -0000, "Ophelia"
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I have never tweeted good to have an outlet for something like that I
> >> >> suppose
> >> >
> >> >Can't imagine what the draw is with Twitter - or Linkedin for that
> >> >matter.
> >>
> >> I would say exactly the same about FB and Pinterest, of no use
> >> whatsoever.
> >
> >If you don't have any interests, then Pinterest isn't for you and
> >either you like it or you don't with FB. I'm a late comer to and
> >still am not convinced it's indispensable. I really like Pinterest,
> >but it's because I treat it like I do Word, except one of the options
> >I have to peruse my files is visually and I like that. If you don't,
> >it's no skin off my nose. I'm not telling you to use it, but don't
> >whine about it like Julie does with sites she doesn't use.
>
> Interesting - you decided to sneer about my very occasional use of
> twitter but it's okay for you to rain on me for my lack of interest in
> FB and Pinterest - rules for one but not for the other I guess!

Not sure what your problem is. You're not interested in Pinterest and
I don't care. Pinterest serves a purpose for me that is not connected
to social networking. It takes a load off my browsers because I don't
keep 30+ tabs to recipes I want to try open anymore and I can scan my
recipe folders/files visually as well as doing a global word search.
That's my thing, not yours. I'm not interested in Twitter, can't
figure out what the allure is and that shouldn't bother you.

RFC is all the "social networking" I want. If I "follow" people, they
are recipe bloggers and I subscribe via email - some through FB, one
in particular because she doesn't do email, just RSS (which I've
tried, but found I never read - so I didn't bother installing another
RSS reader when I got a new computer). I've often said here that I
can't stand all the prose by "budding"/wannabe writers and cookbook
writers, I just want the recipe - which is why I prefer subscribing to
the blogs of people are aspiring food stylists, because there is less
yammering, with more/better recipes and pictures.


--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:37:22 -0000, Janet > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>
> > Interesting - you decided to sneer about my very occasional use of
> > twitter but it's okay for you to rain on me for my lack of interest in
> > FB and Pinterest - rules for one but not for the other I guess!
>
> Welcome to sf-world, where gravity and logic do not exist. You are now
> at the centre of the universe.
>
> Janet UK

Blow it out your ass, Janet.


--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 09:51:48 +0200, ChattyCathy
> wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:41:19 -0800, sf wrote:
>
>
> > Is word of mouth the point you thought I was missing? <shrug> So what?
>
> No, the point you are missing is that not everyone on the planet would
> miss FB or other social networks if they ceased to exist. But clearly you
> would.

And what does that have to do with my reasoning why the smaller mom
and pop operations choose to have a presence on FB rather than a web
site? You obviously can't handle the idea that people don't rely on
internet sites to stay in touch with their customer base. Julie is
the one who won't give up FB for that, not me. I don't give a damn
one way or the other about FB - I was talked into joining and still
don't see the allure. However, Pinterest serves a real purpose for me
that has absolutely nothing to do with Twitter, Instagram or FB types
of interaction. Again, it's something that you can't seem to
comprehend.




--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 03:37:07 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
> news
> > On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:41:19 -0800, sf wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Is word of mouth the point you thought I was missing? <shrug> So what?
> >
> > No, the point you are missing is that not everyone on the planet would
> > miss FB or other social networks if they ceased to exist. But clearly you
> > would.
>
> I was in a waiting room of a Drs. office once. A man and his teenaged son
> were there with their smart phones. The dad freaked because he couldn't get
> FB to load. Then he turned to the son and said, "Is Myspace working?" It
> was.

Good god.


--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 03:43:09 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 12:53:30 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> > I don't see it anymore, because Pinterest has made it so much easier
> >> > to report them - but there were some real idiots out there who
> >> > probably had a virus on their home computer, so all of their beautiful
> >> > Pinned photos led to the same website (usually for weight loss).
> >>
> >> Not according to what I read online. It really is a massive hack attack
> >> and
> >> has been going on since 2012. Pinterest themselves even mentioned it.
> >
> > Honestly, I have no idea what you've been reading and don't care. As
> > I said previously, I use it daily, have thousands of Pins and don't
> > see whatever it is you're trying to spread fear about. So they're
> > being hacked - so what? Target, the military and the US government
> > are being attacked daily too. That's what happens when you're a
> > "presence" on the internet.
>
> Okay then. Don't say that you weren't warned! If your pins all go away
> you'd be SOL because that's how you save stuff.

It wouldn't be a problem for me. I'm fine with them all going away
and starting over because there's an entire internet full of recipes.
I now save only what I've tried and liked to my computer instead of
bogging down my browsers with untried recipes or saving everything to
Word, tried or not.


--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 09:03:40 -0800, sf wrote:

> I don't give a damn one way or the other about FB - I was talked into
> joining and still don't see the allure.

Good grief! Who are you - and what have you done with sf?

> However, Pinterest serves a real purpose for me that has absolutely
> nothing to do with Twitter, Instagram or FB types of interaction. Again,
> it's something that you can't seem to comprehend.

Whatever floats your boat.......

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy <backing away slowly>

On 1/25/2014 6:39 PM, sf wrote:
>
> Yes, I understand. A couple of occasional posters from rfc also use
> FB that way and they stay logged in so family can chat with them via
> the chat box. I never read my FB "Friends" (including close family:
> DS, DD nieces and nephews) home pages. If it doesn't appear in my
> news feed, it doesn't exist. They have to tag me or mention me by
> name with an @ to make sure I see whatever it is they want me to
> see... and then I might miss it.
>
>

Facebook is a big part of some people lives but I can't get a handle on
how it works or the dynamics of it. I'm missing some sort of social
component in my mental makeup. :-) I don't like going through my kid's
pages because it really feels like snooping. I'd prefer to not know too
much about most other people.

On 1/26/2014 1:37 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>
> If it weren't for FB, I wouldn't hear from some of my relatives.

FB is great because having all the family news in one place, means I
don't have to work very hard to avoid seeing it. :-)

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 19:53:39 +0200, ChattyCathy
> wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 09:03:40 -0800, sf wrote:
>
> > I don't give a damn one way or the other about FB - I was talked into
> > joining and still don't see the allure.
>
> Good grief! Who are you - and what have you done with sf?

I haven't extolled the virtues of FB, but unlike you, I don't put it
down either.
>
> > However, Pinterest serves a real purpose for me that has absolutely
> > nothing to do with Twitter, Instagram or FB types of interaction. Again,
> > it's something that you can't seem to comprehend.
>
> Whatever floats your boat.......

Exactly.


--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 08:19:29 -1000, dsi1
> wrote:

> On 1/25/2014 6:39 PM, sf wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I understand. A couple of occasional posters from rfc also use
> > FB that way and they stay logged in so family can chat with them via
> > the chat box. I never read my FB "Friends" (including close family:
> > DS, DD nieces and nephews) home pages. If it doesn't appear in my
> > news feed, it doesn't exist. They have to tag me or mention me by
> > name with an @ to make sure I see whatever it is they want me to
> > see... and then I might miss it.
> >
> >
>
> Facebook is a big part of some people lives but I can't get a handle on
> how it works or the dynamics of it. I'm missing some sort of social
> component in my mental makeup. :-) I don't like going through my kid's
> pages because it really feels like snooping. I'd prefer to not know too
> much about most other people.

For me, it has nothing to do with feeling like I'm snooping - I'm
simply NOT interested. Like I said before, if anyone wants me to see
something specific - they can always tag me. I look at my news feed
(which does not feed every little thing from every "Friend", TG) and
if it's not there, I don't see it. I do get a lot of recipes in my
news feed and I like that.


--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

On 1/26/2014 9:32 AM, sf wrote:
> For me, it has nothing to do with feeling like I'm snooping - I'm
> simply NOT interested. Like I said before, if anyone wants me to see
> something specific - they can always tag me. I look at my news feed
> (which does not feed every little thing from every "Friend", TG) and
> if it's not there, I don't see it. I do get a lot of recipes in my
> news feed and I like that.
>
>
I think my attitude is the same as yours. I'm not interested in the
lives of most people. I have a LinkedIn account that I don't use
although I probably should be working on building up professional
connections. My guts tell me that LinkedIn is going to be pretty
important for businesses. It's social networking but one with some
compelling reasons for being active. My ex-boss digs the site - he posts
a lot. OTOH, he's always been a self-promoter.

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 11:28:39 -0800, sf wrote:


> I haven't extolled the virtues of FB, but unlike you, I don't put it
> down either.

Guess we remember things differently. The last 50-odd times time we
'discussed' the pros and cons of having a FB account you kept telling me
how secure it was, how easy it was to set personal preferences and to
friend/unfriend people. You also claimed that it was even easier (and so
much more convenient) than sites like photobucket/tinypic to upload photos
and/or videos to, in order to share these with your family and friends. I
was not convinced - and to this day have not 'signed up' - nor will I.

I see you've changed your tune somewhat - so heaven help anyone who has
the audacity to argue with you about the many virtues of Pinterest (or
whatever) once you've decided which social network/photo sharing site is
the best thing since bubblegum - or not - in your esteemed opinion.

Anyway, I'll just go blow "it" out of my ass to forestall any forthcoming
requests from you to do so.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

In article >,
Nancy Young > wrote:

> On 1/26/2014 2:40 AM, ChattyCathy wrote:
>
> > Well, I didn't read or 'share' anything with this NG for a couple of years
> > and the world didn't stop turning for me - and I'm willing to bet nobody
> > gave a damn.
>
> You'd be wrong. Just sayin.
> >
> > Mind you, there might have been one of those "Anybody heard from XXXX?"
> > threads, to which certain posters might have replied, "I hope she's not
> > dead" <yeah, right> while others would have said, "Hope she is dead and
> > good riddance". Then somebody would have googled and come to the
> > conclusion I *was* dead and posted something to that effect.... Then, more
> > than likely it would have morphed into a nice flame war about 'speaking
> > ill of the dead' and/or what a moron/saint I was <cough> - which might
> > have been cause for some entertainment value here - for a couple of hours,
> > anyway.
>
> (laugh) Nothing like that happened. Regarding you, I mean.
> It's exactly what happened to one person, unfortunately.
>
> nancy

Who? Name names, Woman!
--
Barb,
http://www.barbschaller.com, as of April 8, 2013.

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:28:17 +0200, ChattyCathy
> wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 11:28:39 -0800, sf wrote:
>
>
> > I haven't extolled the virtues of FB, but unlike you, I don't put it
> > down either.
>
> Guess we remember things differently. The last 50-odd times time we
> 'discussed' the pros and cons of having a FB account you kept telling me
> how secure it was,

I don't remember claiming security one way or the other.

> how easy it was to set personal preferences and to
> friend/unfriend people.

Yes, personal preferences are easy. You can see as much or as little
of any "friend" as you want. There's no reason for me to talk about
"unfriending", but blocking is certainly easy.

> You also claimed that it was even easier (and so
> much more convenient) than sites like photobucket/tinypic to upload photos
> and/or videos to, in order to share these with your family and friends.

It is, just drag it to the box and FB does the rest.

> I
> was not convinced - and to this day have not 'signed up' - nor will I.

Ask me if I ca I don't. I have not defended FB for any reason
other than from the shear stupidity of comments like what you just
wrote.
>
> I see you've changed your tune somewhat - so heaven help anyone who has
> the audacity to argue with you about the many virtues of Pinterest (or
> whatever) once you've decided which social network/photo sharing site is
> the best thing since bubblegum - or not - in your esteemed opinion.
>
> Anyway, I'll just go blow "it" out of my ass to forestall any forthcoming
> requests from you to do so.

Thank you for being proactive about it.


--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

On 1/26/14, 10:25 AM, Doris Night wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 03:32:46 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>> The dance studio has a website but... They don't run it. They hire someone
>> to do that for them. If they need to get the word out quickly to us all,
>> they use email and Facebook. Facebook is quicker, I'm sure!
>
> But what if you don't happen to have your computer turned on at all
> times?

Then you load the corresponding app into your smartphone, and turn on
notifications for that app.

-- Larry

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:47:59 -0800, sf wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:28:17 +0200, ChattyCathy
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 11:28:39 -0800, sf wrote:
>>
>>
>> > I haven't extolled the virtues of FB, but unlike you, I don't put it
>> > down either.
>>
>> Guess we remember things differently. The last 50-odd times time we
>> 'discussed' the pros and cons of having a FB account you kept telling
>> me how secure it was,
>
> I don't remember claiming security one way or the other.
>
>> how easy it was to set personal preferences and to friend/unfriend
>> people.
>
> Yes, personal preferences are easy. You can see as much or as little of
> any "friend" as you want. There's no reason for me to talk about
> "unfriending", but blocking is certainly easy.
>
>> You also claimed that it was even easier (and so much more convenient)
>> than sites like photobucket/tinypic to upload photos and/or videos to,
>> in order to share these with your family and friends.
>
> It is, just drag it to the box and FB does the rest.
>
>> I
>> was not convinced - and to this day have not 'signed up' - nor will I.
>
> Ask me if I ca I don't. I have not defended FB for any reason other
> than from the shear stupidity of comments like what you just wrote.
>>
>> I see you've changed your tune somewhat - so heaven help anyone who has
>> the audacity to argue with you about the many virtues of Pinterest (or
>> whatever) once you've decided which social network/photo sharing site
>> is the best thing since bubblegum - or not - in your esteemed opinion.
>>
>> Anyway, I'll just go blow "it" out of my ass to forestall any
>> forthcoming requests from you to do so.
>
> Thank you for being proactive about it.

You're welcome.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On 1/26/2014 2:54 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 1/26/2014 9:32 AM, sf wrote:
>> For me, it has nothing to do with feeling like I'm snooping - I'm
>> simply NOT interested. Like I said before, if anyone wants me to see
>> something specific - they can always tag me. I look at my news feed
>> (which does not feed every little thing from every "Friend", TG) and
>> if it's not there, I don't see it. I do get a lot of recipes in my
>> news feed and I like that.
>>
>>
> I think my attitude is the same as yours. I'm not interested in the
> lives of most people. I have a LinkedIn account that I don't use
> although I probably should be working on building up professional
> connections. My guts tell me that LinkedIn is going to be pretty
> important for businesses.

Oh, I sincerely doubt LinkedIn is, or will be, all that important. I
had a membership for a brief time. As with FB, it degraded into "if you
know this person maybe you know that person." No, sorry, I don't.
Completely useless.

Jill

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 19:43:13 -0400, wrote:

> I dislike it when people I know join Linkdn - it instantly takes their
> address books and emails all the people in it saying they have joined
> and want you to join too - arrggh

That's because they say "yes" to connect with friends.


--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
news
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 03:31:00 -0800, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>
>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 12:56:19 -0800, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Unfortunately the means of communication for many businesses that I
>>>> use is through Facebook. So it would matter to me.
>>>
>>> Which 'businesses' would those be? 'Momma's home cookies' or 'Joe
>>> Citizen's Gardening Service' - or maybe 'Jake the Plumber'?
>>
>> Angela's dance studio, some stores and restaurants.
>
> Don't these businesses/stores/restaurants have telephones - or email? And
> why would you need to use their FB pages to 'communicate' with them? Sure,
> you might want to know what their latest specials are - or what time
> Angela should be at the studio for her lessons... She does actually go
> there, doesn't she - or does she just watch videos loaded on their FB page
> and dance along to those? If so, I'm sure there are DVDs one can purchase
> or hire that do the same job...
>
Of course they do! But do you expect them to call 300 students to tell them
not to come in due to snow? Much easier to put one post on Facebook and to
have instructed everyone prior to look there for updates. That's why they
use Facebook.

In can call there if I want to or need to. They may or may not answer the
phone. The receptionists do have to run into the classrooms, refill
supplies, etc. But that's all beside the point. The point of Facebook is
to do updates!

In the case of a store that is closing and moving to a new location, they
put sale updates on their Facebook page. I only wish I had seen it prior to
going to the store. Had I realized that the day I was in was the last day
they'd be there and that the whole store was 75% off (that part was not
clearly advertised in the store) I would have bought a lot more!
>
>>> IMHO, if the only way one can do 'business' with a company or service
>>> provider is via FB then they're not worth doing business with in the
>>> first place.
>>
>> More and more businesses are going that route. Especially restaurants.
>> They do that instead of getting a proper website.
>
> Well yes, I'm well aware of this - as I've already said to sf elsewhere in
> this thread. But I still fail to believe that if FB and/or any other
> social networking site suddenly ceased to exist, surely you'd still have
> some other means of contacting them and/or they'd not automatically go out
> of business because of it.

I never said it was to contact them. It is so that *they* can quickly get a
message out to a bunch of people at once.

>>> Good grief, what's next? Having to have a FB account in order to have
>>> water and power supplied to your home - or to open a bank account?
>>> Gimme a break. I'm fairly sure if you read FB's T&Cs there will be a
>>> 'best effort' clause buried in there somewhere.... Go look it up.
>>
>> Sorry, I have no clue what that is.
>
> OK, T&Cs are Terms & Conditions of service - that every single FB user
> agrees to automatically when they create an account with them (private or
> business, makes no difference). And in these terms and conditions there
> will be a clause that states something along the lines of "we can only
> guarantee access to our site on a best effort basis" - which means that
> they will do all they can to keep the site up 24/7, 365 days a year, but
> if an earthquake breaks a bunch of undersea cables or some fool employee
> of theirs rolls out an 'upgrade' that breaks things, etc. which in turn
> disrupts said access, tough luck! Even 'pay for' websites and ISPs have
> clauses like that.

Okay...
>
>> And I only got a Twitter account
>> because the school required it at some point. Don't think they actually
>> ever used it though.
>
> You can't be serious? How any school could 'legally' require that of
> parents/guardians is beyond me. They might have suggested it, but I cannot
> see it being a 'requirement'.

Why can you not think this? They are also required to have computers and
Internet access. Some school districts here will even give the low income
students laptops and there are ways for the parents to get cheap or free
Internet access. This does not apply to us so I don't know the particulars.
The school district opted to go another route rather than Twitter now. We
are supposed to sign up for it. Whether require is the correct word or not
is debatable. But had I not signed up, it would take longer for me to get
updates. Yes, they still make phone calls. But using this system is much
quicker. And sorry, I don't remember the name of the website and system
that they use.

"Doris Night" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 03:32:46 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>The dance studio has a website but... They don't run it. They hire
>>someone
>>to do that for them. If they need to get the word out quickly to us all,
>>they use email and Facebook. Facebook is quicker, I'm sure!
>
> But what if you don't happen to have your computer turned on at all
> times?

Mine is on at all times but... Ya'll just don't get it. It's starting to
snow? Rather than have 300 people call the studio to see if it is open,
better to have them check the FB page. Otherwise you have them trying to
call you while you are trying to call them. This is sooo much better!

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/26/2014 10:25 AM, Doris Night wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 03:32:46 -0800, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> The dance studio has a website but... They don't run it. They hire
>>> someone
>>> to do that for them. If they need to get the word out quickly to us
>>> all,
>>> they use email and Facebook. Facebook is quicker, I'm sure!
>>
>> But what if you don't happen to have your computer turned on at all
>> times?
>>
>> Doris
>>
> Or, heaven forbid, the computer breaks?

Then you use your Ipad or Smart Phone. Or you use your kid's computer. Not
a big deal.
>
> The meat market in town sends emails about weekly specials. It's a BCC
> list so I don't have to slog through a hundred email address headers to
> read what's going on. I can't see how logging into Facebook would be any
> faster than reading an email.

It's faster for *them* because all they have to do is post to FB. Sure they
probably have quick some way to send emails to a bunch of people at once.
If there is such a way, I don't know as I don't ever need to do that.
>
> I'm only slightly irked by the fact that (for example) the cat litter I
> prefer to buy moved everything from their web site to Facebook. I don't
> have to re-activate my FB account to look for special offers or print
> coupons. It's just the ASSumption that everyone loves FB that bugs me. My
> 2 cents.
>
> Jill

"pltrgyst" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/26/14, 10:25 AM, Doris Night wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 03:32:46 -0800, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> The dance studio has a website but... They don't run it. They hire
>>> someone
>>> to do that for them. If they need to get the word out quickly to us
>>> all,
>>> they use email and Facebook. Facebook is quicker, I'm sure!
>>
>> But what if you don't happen to have your computer turned on at all
>> times?
>
> Then you load the corresponding app into your smartphone, and turn on
> notifications for that app.

These people need to get with the times!

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
news
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 03:34:55 -0800, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>
>> I happen to like FB. I can get the word out to all of my friends at
>> once. Might not apply to them but if I'm in a hurry, I can do that a lot
>> faster than calling or emailing them all.
>
> <snort>
>
> Calling them maybe - but emailing them all at once - not. (Yes, you can do
> that.)

Yes but unless you have a service to send all the calls out at once, that
won't work. And they only have one person who does the emails. She doesn't
even work from the studio and may not be home at the time they need to
close. I don't even know what city she lives in. So it may well not even
be snowing where she is. She might not know. On Facebook, any one of the
teachers could put up a notice that they are closed.
>
> Anyway Julie, love ya posts. Keep 'em coming, please ;-)

K

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> I happen to like FB. I can get the word out to all of my friends at
>> once.
>> Might not apply to them but if I'm in a hurry, I can do that a lot faster
>> than calling or emailing them all.
>
> Or you can email them all with one email using CC.

I could if I had their emails. I don't have email for everyone who is on my
FB and if I used CC I would still have to take the time to put in all those
addresses. I used to have to do this for school things and it was very time
consuming to do for 30 people.
>
> I'm in contact with 3 friends everyday and we use the mailing list
> concept. Every email is addressed to all.

Hmmm... I don't do so much email now that I have FB. Just much faster that
way. Can chat too!