To complicate matters again, what if you don't want to kill LoudTwitter for everyone, just for those one or two annoying people who post pages and pages of one-sided conversations? At that point a universal opt-in goes out the window.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 2:19 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Lol, I don't get why unsubscribing - or scrolling - have to be our only two > options. As an opt-in feature, people who would rather not see loudtwitter > can have them cut - just as with img placeholders. So people who post > loudtwitter don't have *anything* forced onto them. It would just mean more > options for people. > > But I really, really want a minimise/collapse button so I don't have to beg > people to 'cut, plz' everytime someone posts something insanely long/very > graphic. > > -g > > > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:16:52 -0700, chasy <[email protected]> wrote: > > I guess my mode of operation is, "if I don't like it, I don't read it." I >> don't really agree that people's entries should be forced behind a cut >> just >> because *I* don't want to read it. I have friends who use LoudTwitter >> (yes, >> it drives me crazy too, because my thought is, if I'm interested in what >> you >> have to say on Twitter, I will follow you), who post about the specific >> details of their sex life, who share a YouTube video almost every day, >> etc. >> --> but if I don't want that stuff on my reading page, that's on *me*, not >> them. Either I unsubscribe, put up and shut up (as gossymer so eloquently >> put it *wink*), or simply SKIP it. >> >> I don't understand why this--^ isn't an acceptable option. It's not that >> inconvenient to scroll past the "offending" entry. >> >> - Chasy. >> > > >
_______________________________________________ dw-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
