121–130 of 158 posts
Thus you continue to use it, given several alternatives, as the best of a bad bunch (because no-one uses the others).
This never bodes well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a ridiculous argument. There are plenty of people I see every day that I would consider, at best, an acquaintance. There is also a very small group of people that I see maybe once or twice a year that I would consider friends. Your definition of friendship is outrageously shallow and is contrary to any other definition I have heard.
> There are plenty of people I see every day that I would consider, at best, an acquaintance. Ditto, where did I say seeing someone every day made them a friend? If it's this "it's the people you hang out with and see on a regular basis" that wasn't meant to qualify everyone you see daily as a friend. > There is also a very small group of people that I see maybe once or twice a year that I would consider friends. But…
>Friend isn't a permanent status, it's the people you hang out with and see on a regular basis.
In my post where I say "maybe once or twice a year" I am saying precisely that I do NOT see them on a regular basis.
It is not that I don't understand what you're saying, it is that you're not saying what you mean correctly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are plenty of people I see every day that I would consider, at best, an acquaintance. Ditto, where did I say seeing someone every day made them a friend? If it's this "it's the people you hang out with and see on a regular basis" that wasn't meant to qualify everyone you see daily as a friend. > There is also a very small group of people that I see maybe once or twice a year that I would consider friends. But…
I'm sorry but you're moving the goal posts here. >Friend isn't a permanent status, it's the people you hang out with and see on a regular basis. In my post where I say "maybe once or twice a year" I am saying precisely that I do NOT see them on a regular basis. It is not that I don't understand what you're saying, it is that you're not saying what you mean correctly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not telling anyone who their friends are, I'm telling you you're using the English language sloppily if everyone in your Facebook you really consider a "friend". You've devalued the word to nearly meaninglessness. Everyone you've ever met is not your friend. Everyone you've had a friendly conversation with and looked up on Facebook is not your friend.
This is a ridiculous argument. There are plenty of people I see every day that I would consider, at best, an acquaintance. There is also a very small group of people that I see maybe once or twice a year that I would consider friends. Your definition of friendship is outrageously shallow and is contrary to any other definition I have heard.
He was right, nothing is different. It's like friends back in the 1800s exchanging letters. Doesn't mean that our friendship is less because we don't go out on Fridays and pound down a few pints.
In contrast, the people I work with, I spend far more time with, and interact directly with more frequently than my friend. Yet I wouldn't consider any of them friends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you, but there's another issue here: some of your friends may not actually respond to email messages. Personally, I'm a fan of email and letter writing (and not a fan of the phone), but I've fallen out of touch with several friends because if you don't contact them via Facebook or Twitter (I do neither), you won't hear back from them.
You're missing the point -- those people aren't your friends anyway. The fact that you can "like" a picture of someone's kid or say happy birthday on their Wall doesn't change that fact. Facebook can be a great tool for sharing photos and other things with your friends. But most of what is actually happening on Facebook is voyeurism -- you get to stalk people whom you sort of know.
I've never heard of the 'other' folder before. So I go look for it and find a message from an old college friend getting back in touch. From 10 months ago. Thanks FB.
I think that a big part of this problem is that Apple played along. If I am understanding this correctly, the bigger issue here is that people's phonebooks are getting updated without consent (as opposed to the bigger issue being a different email being displayed on fb.com) and that this was only possible with Apple's involvement? Correct me if I'm wrong please. I think it's also worth noting that I have had no issue…
Do you want to get a notification every time someone updates their email? Or do you want the emails your phone knows for people to just automatically stay up to date on their own?
I am reminded of an old Dilbert cartoon where they bring in a usability expert to help them write an app. After suggesting that the computer shock the user when they do the wrong thing, he quips, "I found this job to be a lot easier once I realized I hated people" Seriously, Facebook. Do one thing and do it well. Enough of this conquer-the-universe bullshit. I'm already at the point where I want to jump ship; I just…
Enough of this conquer-the-universe bullshit. Their end goal is to be the entire Internet in a curated show-you-only-what-you-agree-with-so-you-click-on-more-things model. They won't stop or slow down until something else makes them irrelevant.
To not play is to risk suicide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enough of this conquer-the-universe bullshit. Their end goal is to be the entire Internet in a curated show-you-only-what-you-agree-with-so-you-click-on-more-things model. They won't stop or slow down until something else makes them irrelevant.
That's right; facebook, google, apple and possibly others are on a course of mutually assured destruction. If they neglect any aspect of social networking (mail, friends, shopping, instant messaging) they fear that dominance in one aspect will lead to dominance in all. To not play is to risk suicide.
Personally, my money is on Google winning out, although not my investments.