Cameron - a "shrewd & malevolent psychopath"?

I dont want you to give up posting either grannyonce.

Posters are reading and listening to you grannyonce. Lurkers too.

I dont think that debate is stifled. More that a lot of posters cannot be bothered to put in som much effort.
When the election happened, I had wondered if that was such a good idea.
But I am very glad I didnt now!

Eh?

whitewave, you are one of the few left-leaners who regularly post on here with whom it is possible to have a sensible and reasoned discussion without anyone resorting to sarcasm and/or childish insults

Blimey I must be loosing my touch

whitewave

Well, it's sad if that's really what you think whitewave...

if Labour had won the election, there would have been a lot of welfare cuts, this is just a fact.There is not a Government with it's own money as some seem to think, it is all OUR money, and cuts have to be made all across the board.Some posters are stuck in the past with the image of wealthy Tories stuffing tenners in each other's pockets, this could equally be wealthy Labour leaders, and is an old fashioned way of thinking.Where are cuts to be made?
I would rather councils stopped verge grass cutting than some services, and here where I live, that is what is happening, all councils have to budget much more cleverly than before.Our economy will come right in the end, and then there will be more services to people who need them and maybe more money for those who are in genuine need.

soontobe How do you know that lurkers, who by definition rarely, if ever post, are reading and listening to grannyonce?

What a nice thought, roses. If council cuts mean that they'll stop cutting flower filled grass verges, I'm in favour of cuts. Think positive, wot?

absent. Because on other sites, "views" are published. And the ratio ofr all of the ones I see are somewhere in the ratio of 30 views per 1 post. See netmums as 1 example.
So no reason at all, not to think the same ratio applies to gransnet.

You're taking your investigations into social networking very seriously, aren't you soontobe?

I still don't understand at all what your post of 18.54 meant.

TB, I always think positive, it's the only way to live!Cow Parsley and red poppies rule!

With you there, roses! Although here it's more sea radish and ox-eye daisies at the mo.

soontobe Firstly, the sites are not necessarily comparable and, secondly, just because someone looks at a thread doesn't mean that they read all of it or, indeed, any of it. I am sure I am not the only one who opens a thread with a slightly obscure heading and closes it virtually immediately when I have seen what the OP is about because I am simply not interested. In any case, there is absolutely no way to tell whether lurkers are paying any attention to any given post on a thread. There are plenty of instances when posters make a comment that betrays the fact that haven't read the posts that preceded theirs.

I'll own up to that, absent. Sometimes I make a comment in response to one way up thread and I haven't read all the succeeding ones before mine.

absent and Ana. I lurk on about 4 sites, including a couple of sites for men.
All sites have around the 30:1 view ratio.

There are many people who only lurk on sites. Put in any hobby. Put in any occupation. And there seems to be a chat forum for it.

Which part of 18.54pm dont you understand Ana?

All of it.

I didn't understand the second part of it.

A lot of posters cannot be bothered to put in too much effort to counterbalance the left wing posts and views.
When the election was coming up, I wondered if I should be doing more counterbalancing.
But as the result turned out like it did, I am glad that I didnt bother.

Quoting trisher. "Come on Giddy old fellow do us a budget and drop a few nice deals our way"

Don't you think it's time the families with young kids had a look in? I do. I think us pensioners are doing pretty damn well.

I sometimes think about the lurkers. I reckong GN has probably got a huge number.

Some of us could be famous!