New Post
Search
Helpsocial security 2006 names out
Not sure if others have so discovered, but SSA has 2006 listed. Top ten nationally pasted below:
1 Jacob Emily
2 Michael Emma
3 Joshua Madison
4 Ethan Isabella
5 Matthew Ava
6 Daniel Abigail
7 Christopher Olivia
8 Andrew Hannah
9 Anthony Sophia
10 William Samantha
1 Jacob Emily
2 Michael Emma
3 Joshua Madison
4 Ethan Isabella
5 Matthew Ava
6 Daniel Abigail
7 Christopher Olivia
8 Andrew Hannah
9 Anthony Sophia
10 William Samantha
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
Emma- my #1 name
Emily-#2 name
Hannah- top ten
Ava-,top 20
Don't like Samantha, Olivia, and Madison.
Now for the boys
Jacob
Joshua
Ethan
Daniel
Christopher (My boyfriend's name!)
I hate William because of a certain someone with that name.
Emily-#2 name
Hannah- top ten
Ava-,top 20
Don't like Samantha, Olivia, and Madison.
Now for the boys
Jacob
Joshua
Ethan
Daniel
Christopher (My boyfriend's name!)
I hate William because of a certain someone with that name.
1
Everyone, chill
The numerous posts on the 2006 SSA lists are still on the front page of this board, and are quite accessible by searching or even just scrolling down. And if you wander next door to the Facts Board, several posts regarding the SSA lists are still right up top. Several people have already pointed this out.
As you might have noticed, we tend to love our rules like our firstborn children or equivalent (OK, maybe not that much...). And as those aforementioned several people have also pointed out, we don't like to waste board space, and therefore try not to repeat posts and to consolidate several topics into one thread. These are unofficial rules, true, but a rule nonetheless; most sensible people realise following the unofficial rules of a community/group/society is often vital to proper social interaction within that group, especially online where the communication and interaction is so different from in Real Life.
But even I, an old-timer, have duplicated topics accidentally; most everyone does from time to time. But it's no biggie. When I do this no-no, and it's brought to my attention, I embarrassedly say sorry, shut up, and move on. And that's that.
And if all this makes me an "unhappy person", well, so be it.
The numerous posts on the 2006 SSA lists are still on the front page of this board, and are quite accessible by searching or even just scrolling down. And if you wander next door to the Facts Board, several posts regarding the SSA lists are still right up top. Several people have already pointed this out.
As you might have noticed, we tend to love our rules like our firstborn children or equivalent (OK, maybe not that much...). And as those aforementioned several people have also pointed out, we don't like to waste board space, and therefore try not to repeat posts and to consolidate several topics into one thread. These are unofficial rules, true, but a rule nonetheless; most sensible people realise following the unofficial rules of a community/group/society is often vital to proper social interaction within that group, especially online where the communication and interaction is so different from in Real Life.
But even I, an old-timer, have duplicated topics accidentally; most everyone does from time to time. But it's no biggie. When I do this no-no, and it's brought to my attention, I embarrassedly say sorry, shut up, and move on. And that's that.
And if all this makes me an "unhappy person", well, so be it.
1
If I had one complaint
about this board it would be that people are WAY too apt to jump all over other people.
She was trying to be helpful. Is anyone just highly offended that she posted this? I think not, and if you are, then you must be a generally unhappy person and I'm very sorry for you.
about this board it would be that people are WAY too apt to jump all over other people.
She was trying to be helpful. Is anyone just highly offended that she posted this? I think not, and if you are, then you must be a generally unhappy person and I'm very sorry for you.
1
100% agree
It's gotten to the point where it's almost comical. If I see a message that's been posted before I think to myself... "Okay, here comes the fury...3...2...1..."
It's not just about reposts, either. It's spelling and grammatical errors, posting too much, messages on the wrong pages, etc. What the "police" don't realize is that by multiple people replying in an effort to stick it to the offender, they are actually pushing the posts down the board even more (which is the very thing they are allegedly trying to avoid).
There is a lot to be said for taking a deep breath and moving on.
It's gotten to the point where it's almost comical. If I see a message that's been posted before I think to myself... "Okay, here comes the fury...3...2...1..."
It's not just about reposts, either. It's spelling and grammatical errors, posting too much, messages on the wrong pages, etc. What the "police" don't realize is that by multiple people replying in an effort to stick it to the offender, they are actually pushing the posts down the board even more (which is the very thing they are allegedly trying to avoid).
There is a lot to be said for taking a deep breath and moving on.
1
We do realize that the posts get bumped down, actually, which is why there is usually only ever one post pointing out whatever is being addressed. This post was an exception.
I have to ask what your point in replying to this thread is other than to be gossipy and backbiting. If you have a problem with me (as you clearly DO) please, let ME know instead of this. It's annoying, and frankly, immature.
The majority of people do let it go, but often, what you refer to as "the police" will point out the error of the OP so they KNOW FOR FUTURE REFERENCE. Why doesn't anybody ever consider that? I know if I'm new to an online community and don't know what I'm doing, I would be grateful for someone to point out my missteps sooner rather than later so I don't keep making them. But clearly that just wounds pride.
And calmly and factfully pointing out whatever we do is not the same as "fury" so that's really uncalled for. It'd be one thing if I had made my reply to SuzyQ like this, "You idiot, can't you scroll down the page? We've already talked about this ten times. Are you blind?" or something. THAT would be fury. It's also completely not what I said.
I have to ask what your point in replying to this thread is other than to be gossipy and backbiting. If you have a problem with me (as you clearly DO) please, let ME know instead of this. It's annoying, and frankly, immature.
The majority of people do let it go, but often, what you refer to as "the police" will point out the error of the OP so they KNOW FOR FUTURE REFERENCE. Why doesn't anybody ever consider that? I know if I'm new to an online community and don't know what I'm doing, I would be grateful for someone to point out my missteps sooner rather than later so I don't keep making them. But clearly that just wounds pride.
And calmly and factfully pointing out whatever we do is not the same as "fury" so that's really uncalled for. It'd be one thing if I had made my reply to SuzyQ like this, "You idiot, can't you scroll down the page? We've already talked about this ten times. Are you blind?" or something. THAT would be fury. It's also completely not what I said.
This message was edited 5/15/2007, 9:49 AM
1
Good thing this thread isn't pushing others down the board!
It so funny how you feel the need to keep explaining and explaining and explaining yourself. And then you reply to each individual post in an effort to prove how each point made by the other person is wrong.
Do you not see the irony here? By tonight this thread will be a mile long (mostly due to you)... the very thing you wish to avoid.
It so funny how you feel the need to keep explaining and explaining and explaining yourself. And then you reply to each individual post in an effort to prove how each point made by the other person is wrong.
Do you not see the irony here? By tonight this thread will be a mile long (mostly due to you)... the very thing you wish to avoid.
1
The only reason I keep replying is because I can't stand the attitude of snots like you. I see the irony, but as mirfak said, this is an age-old debate and better to hash it out now than later. Mirfak (who is a moderator, btw, in case you didn't notice) invited discussion of the problem here. Excuse me for participating.
I don't need to keep explaining myself but when immature people try to act superior, I get a little tiffed.
I'm done.
I don't need to keep explaining myself but when immature people try to act superior, I get a little tiffed.
I'm done.
This message was edited 5/15/2007, 9:58 AM
1
I see. So, now you resort to name-calling.
Is that what you meant when you said that you
"calmly and factfully pointing out whatever we do..."
Your classiness astounds me.
Is that what you meant when you said that you
"calmly and factfully pointing out whatever we do..."
Your classiness astounds me.
1
To begin with, I did not say that Evey and Ariel were "pitable," I said that if there was anyone who actually got OFFENDED because someone reposted information (and my guess would be that nobody really would - which was my POINT) that that person is one that I feel sorry for because there are so many bigger fish to fry in life. Not once did I say that anyone had to agree with me. I don't care if you agree or not, I am entitled to my opinion as you are yours.
You want the courtesy of a PM, but you do not give the original poster the same courtesy. Your comments did come off as snippy, particularly because both of you felt the need to correct the poster. I would think that for the original poster this might make them a little gun shy about posting new topics. I don't think this was your original intent, but I feel that your responses were off putting and not helpful, even if you meant them to be.
If there are in fact rules about these things (and there are not, because I looked) then they should be posted in a sticky or in the rules and FAQ section where new people can access that information.
If you really do not want the new pasts to push down the others, why not simply ignore the original post? Then if people really are done talking about it they can also ignore it and if someone does respond, then that would be a sign that people want to continue the conversation. Sometimes it is easier and more interesting to read and respond to a smaller thread anyway, when threads get huge it seems like thoughts and comments get lost.
Finally, there is nothing cowardly in publicly supporting another or defending an opinion. And just because something has always been done, does not make it the best way.
You want the courtesy of a PM, but you do not give the original poster the same courtesy. Your comments did come off as snippy, particularly because both of you felt the need to correct the poster. I would think that for the original poster this might make them a little gun shy about posting new topics. I don't think this was your original intent, but I feel that your responses were off putting and not helpful, even if you meant them to be.
If there are in fact rules about these things (and there are not, because I looked) then they should be posted in a sticky or in the rules and FAQ section where new people can access that information.
If you really do not want the new pasts to push down the others, why not simply ignore the original post? Then if people really are done talking about it they can also ignore it and if someone does respond, then that would be a sign that people want to continue the conversation. Sometimes it is easier and more interesting to read and respond to a smaller thread anyway, when threads get huge it seems like thoughts and comments get lost.
Finally, there is nothing cowardly in publicly supporting another or defending an opinion. And just because something has always been done, does not make it the best way.
1
"if there was anyone" ... Backbiting is backbiting, and indirectness is characteristic of backbiting comments, making them deniable just so. You put someone down -- a hypothetical person? Uh huh.
Moving on...
The "comments came off as snippy" to you. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion and to speak it. Perhaps a lot of people agree with you. But you should qualify it as an opinion. In my opinion, the 2 posters who responded with directions about the site appeared helpful and polite, not making a personal attack. In my opinion, the negative responses to them look like a weird defensive overreaction - I feel I'm being told I can't breathe the air here, if you're offended I pity you, calling it the fury, and the like.
As to whether posts are ignored when they're repeat topics -- it's a good point; that's what most people do. But it's also a good point that the info about searching should be offered to people who obviously aren't aware of it. Not only for the OP's benefit but for everyone's. There has always been arguing on this board about whether "self-moderation" of the board is appropriate (because of people taking it as "bullying" or "snippy" or whatever), or whether hard-ass moderation would be better.
Do you think it would be preferable if Suzie Q's post had been removed and a PM sent advising her about the topic being old? I personally am not excited about that - I think it'd be more off-putting than other posters pointing out why the topic won't see any replies, and nearly as off-putting as seeing no responses to the post and not understanding why (which could incline some people to repost it yet again). But not everyone agrees with me.
Come on folks, let's have it out again - no moderation of the board, self-moderation of the board, or strict moderation?
Moving on...
The "comments came off as snippy" to you. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion and to speak it. Perhaps a lot of people agree with you. But you should qualify it as an opinion. In my opinion, the 2 posters who responded with directions about the site appeared helpful and polite, not making a personal attack. In my opinion, the negative responses to them look like a weird defensive overreaction - I feel I'm being told I can't breathe the air here, if you're offended I pity you, calling it the fury, and the like.
As to whether posts are ignored when they're repeat topics -- it's a good point; that's what most people do. But it's also a good point that the info about searching should be offered to people who obviously aren't aware of it. Not only for the OP's benefit but for everyone's. There has always been arguing on this board about whether "self-moderation" of the board is appropriate (because of people taking it as "bullying" or "snippy" or whatever), or whether hard-ass moderation would be better.
Do you think it would be preferable if Suzie Q's post had been removed and a PM sent advising her about the topic being old? I personally am not excited about that - I think it'd be more off-putting than other posters pointing out why the topic won't see any replies, and nearly as off-putting as seeing no responses to the post and not understanding why (which could incline some people to repost it yet again). But not everyone agrees with me.
Come on folks, let's have it out again - no moderation of the board, self-moderation of the board, or strict moderation?
This message was edited 5/15/2007, 9:36 AM
1
No moderation is decidedly not the way to go. I do not think that removing her message and a PM would have been ideal, either, because she did not post originally as a registered member; it's just not practical. I think a lock and a reply as a moderator would be a good approach because:
It will be consistent. That way, no one can say that they are being unfairly picked on. Granted, right now, people still can say that we do this to everyone, but since it is different posters at different times, it can seem like BtN is against someone. That is not to say that I disagree with it; given the way things are, I would rather see the self-moderation like this than nothing. Anyway, a reply by a mod wearing a "mod hat" would be most effective, I think, because that way, people can separate the poster from the moderator rather than think that posters just always reprimand like this.
Honestly, I think you need help. You're the only active mod right now, and I know you prefer not to be strict about it, but then, we have things like this. I think that some sort of medium needs to be reached. Not that I do not think you are effective -- I think your replies are fair, level-headed, and make good judgment calls -- but I do think that more needs to be done in addition.
It will be consistent. That way, no one can say that they are being unfairly picked on. Granted, right now, people still can say that we do this to everyone, but since it is different posters at different times, it can seem like BtN is against someone. That is not to say that I disagree with it; given the way things are, I would rather see the self-moderation like this than nothing. Anyway, a reply by a mod wearing a "mod hat" would be most effective, I think, because that way, people can separate the poster from the moderator rather than think that posters just always reprimand like this.
Honestly, I think you need help. You're the only active mod right now, and I know you prefer not to be strict about it, but then, we have things like this. I think that some sort of medium needs to be reached. Not that I do not think you are effective -- I think your replies are fair, level-headed, and make good judgment calls -- but I do think that more needs to be done in addition.
This message was edited 5/15/2007, 10:09 AM
1
Complaints about the boards should be addressed to the site owner.
Complaints about individual users' behavior should be addressed to the individual user, or an administrator if you aren't comfy with that.
Backbiting commentary should be stuffed.
- mirfak
Complaints about individual users' behavior should be addressed to the individual user, or an administrator if you aren't comfy with that.
Backbiting commentary should be stuffed.
- mirfak
This message was edited 5/15/2007, 8:20 AM
1
Thanks so much
for not just addressing me specifically. Gotta love the cowardice.
*Eyeroll*
The problem is that with a board set up this way, threads get bumped lower everytime somebody makes a new post. When a post that has already been discussed gets reposted like this, it wastes space and pushes other legitimate ones down. Anyone who has been here more than a day will know to search before posting about something like this that has most likely already had a thread started. We all do it, and the sooner the newbie learns to do it, the better off we'll be. It's not like I snapped or was rude, I just pointed out that we have a search engine. How this makes me an unhappy, pitiable person, I don't know, but you're awfully rude and cowardly for saying so without doing it as a reply to me specifically or even backing up or explaining why you think so.
I could understand it if we were snippy or rude, but we aren't. We're a big board and people join and leave regularly. We sort of self-police although there are designated mods to help. If you have a problem with this, say so to those you have the problem with instead of making general, rude complaints. How anyone could be offended at a system set up to help newbies learn the rules quickly, I don't understand. If you think it's so horrible that we gently correct people, then this isn't the place for you. We're not much for free-for-alls.
for not just addressing me specifically. Gotta love the cowardice.
*Eyeroll*
The problem is that with a board set up this way, threads get bumped lower everytime somebody makes a new post. When a post that has already been discussed gets reposted like this, it wastes space and pushes other legitimate ones down. Anyone who has been here more than a day will know to search before posting about something like this that has most likely already had a thread started. We all do it, and the sooner the newbie learns to do it, the better off we'll be. It's not like I snapped or was rude, I just pointed out that we have a search engine. How this makes me an unhappy, pitiable person, I don't know, but you're awfully rude and cowardly for saying so without doing it as a reply to me specifically or even backing up or explaining why you think so.
I could understand it if we were snippy or rude, but we aren't. We're a big board and people join and leave regularly. We sort of self-police although there are designated mods to help. If you have a problem with this, say so to those you have the problem with instead of making general, rude complaints. How anyone could be offended at a system set up to help newbies learn the rules quickly, I don't understand. If you think it's so horrible that we gently correct people, then this isn't the place for you. We're not much for free-for-alls.
This message was edited 5/15/2007, 5:38 AM
1
Again, I meant no harm. For the record, I did not feel the response was a "gently correct". It felt very intolerant and exclusionary ("we" versus "newbies"). Again, I really believed I was telling people something interesting.
1
1. What you said was interesting. It was also a reiteration.
2. I was responding to Megan, not you. The "we" was meant to distinguish those of us she was pointing the finger at, those of us who correct people, in this post. She is the one who said you were a new person, and "newbie" is the internet term for a person new to a community. You *are* a newbie, so how that is offensive is beyond me. As to the "we" of my subject line, I meant "the boards" in general.
3. If you were offended, as mirfak said, that's your business. We said nothing in a rude or inappropriate way, "we" being Ariel and myself.
4. How things "feel" and how they are can be two different things. Your feeling excluded and untolerated is a case in point.
5. If you plan on continuing posting on any online forum, perhaps you should develop a thicker skin. Not everything is a personal affront, contrary to your apparent belief.
2. I was responding to Megan, not you. The "we" was meant to distinguish those of us she was pointing the finger at, those of us who correct people, in this post. She is the one who said you were a new person, and "newbie" is the internet term for a person new to a community. You *are* a newbie, so how that is offensive is beyond me. As to the "we" of my subject line, I meant "the boards" in general.
3. If you were offended, as mirfak said, that's your business. We said nothing in a rude or inappropriate way, "we" being Ariel and myself.
4. How things "feel" and how they are can be two different things. Your feeling excluded and untolerated is a case in point.
5. If you plan on continuing posting on any online forum, perhaps you should develop a thicker skin. Not everything is a personal affront, contrary to your apparent belief.
This message was edited 5/15/2007, 9:54 AM
1
Re item 2
I did not call anyone a newbie, that was you in your first "Thanks so much"
Just to keep the record straight.
I did not call anyone a newbie, that was you in your first "Thanks so much"
Just to keep the record straight.
1
I don't feel offended that she posted what she did. But I'm beginning to feel highly offended that you said that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "generally unhappy person" and "you feel very sorry for them". You don't respect other people's opinions? That's more of "jumping all over people" than me or Evey were. I reread all of our posts, and I don't think Evey or I could've been any nicer. Name-calling doesn't solve anything.
I agree with Adelle; we don't like to waste space here. Evey & I were simply keeping her aware of the rules here. That's not "jumping all over people".
I disagree with your thinking, and that's ok. It doesn't make me a "generally unhappy person". And you don't need to feel sorry for me. I'm a good person. When you disagree with me, I don't feel the need to call you names, or feel sorry for you. I don't think you're a "generally unhappy person" when we don't agree. It's completely normal to have different opinions.
ETA
I agree with Adelle; we don't like to waste space here. Evey & I were simply keeping her aware of the rules here. That's not "jumping all over people".
I disagree with your thinking, and that's ok. It doesn't make me a "generally unhappy person". And you don't need to feel sorry for me. I'm a good person. When you disagree with me, I don't feel the need to call you names, or feel sorry for you. I don't think you're a "generally unhappy person" when we don't agree. It's completely normal to have different opinions.
ETA
This message was edited 5/14/2007, 8:39 PM
1
It wastes space -- every new thread pushes another further down and out of replying range, and if you're here for any length of time, it gets extremely dull to sift through five of the same posts, so we make an effort out of courtesy to at least search before posting things well known in the public sphere.
If you don't like the way our board handles itself, kindly leave so that those of us who have been here for years and are happy with the way we conduct ourselves can continue to enjoy our board in peace.
I feel sorry for people like you who think you need to get on a high horse of justice when people like Evey and Ariel (politely) point out board policy. It just illustrates your egotistical ignorance.
If you don't like the way our board handles itself, kindly leave so that those of us who have been here for years and are happy with the way we conduct ourselves can continue to enjoy our board in peace.
I feel sorry for people like you who think you need to get on a high horse of justice when people like Evey and Ariel (politely) point out board policy. It just illustrates your egotistical ignorance.
This message was edited 5/14/2007, 7:51 PM
1
http://www.behindthename.com/top/lists/1000us2006.php
In case you're interested, we have the top 1000 (and 100) posted on our website.
Please note that we have a popularity page dedicated for things such as that. So, yes, we DID already know that the SSA posted their list. And there are also clues from the boards, if you read carefully.
http://www.behindthename.com/bb/view.php?id=2888360&board=baby
http://www.behindthename.com/bb/view.php?id=2888136&board=baby
http://www.behindthename.com/bb/view.php?id=2888272&board=game
In case you're interested, we have the top 1000 (and 100) posted on our website.
Please note that we have a popularity page dedicated for things such as that. So, yes, we DID already know that the SSA posted their list. And there are also clues from the boards, if you read carefully.
http://www.behindthename.com/bb/view.php?id=2888360&board=baby
http://www.behindthename.com/bb/view.php?id=2888136&board=baby
http://www.behindthename.com/bb/view.php?id=2888272&board=game
1
The "Help/Rules/FAQ" section does not mention a royal "we" who has a "popularity page" and who speaks on behalf of all readers who allegedly "DID already know" of the SSA 2006 list. Ok, so I'm new. I don't read this board everyday, every minute. Ok, so I did not drill into every aspect of this website to determine if threads previously existed or if the SSA list was included on this site. I meant no harm. I thought I was posting something informative. I really do not think your response (particularly tone) was warranted. Actually, I feel somewhat bullied..."hey, this is my playground, my air, my world, my assumptions, and you stay out."
1
Everything is what you make of it, especially messages in text on the net. Nobody is forcing you to feel bullied. Ariel said nothing to you that could be interpreted as abusive.
Nobody expects you to read every post on the board. Most folks like to find out a little bit about a site before they post on it, and it seems obvious (to me at least) that on a website where the complete single topic is only and entirely "names," the SSA list would have been anticipated and posted about already (it came out on the 11th). If you didn't do or know those things, it's fine - nobody assumed you are lazy or ill-intentioned or rude, or suggested that you were... and I am not surprised that folks point out to you that you have these opportunities, that most people would like to take, and do take, to find out more before you post. It's No Big Deal, and there's no need to take it personally and get defensive about people's supposed "tone." The tone of a text message is a matter of interpretation, and my interpretation of Ariel's tone is substantially different from yours.
For what it's worth, even people who post on this board literally every day sometimes repost topics that were up the day or the week before. And they get informed that it's been done, and they say 'ough, sorry' and conversation over. It's no big deal. You got the more formalized 'here's how you find out' just because people don't recognize you and assume you don't know how to find out, not because you're unwelcome to post informative topics.
Nobody expects you to read every post on the board. Most folks like to find out a little bit about a site before they post on it, and it seems obvious (to me at least) that on a website where the complete single topic is only and entirely "names," the SSA list would have been anticipated and posted about already (it came out on the 11th). If you didn't do or know those things, it's fine - nobody assumed you are lazy or ill-intentioned or rude, or suggested that you were... and I am not surprised that folks point out to you that you have these opportunities, that most people would like to take, and do take, to find out more before you post. It's No Big Deal, and there's no need to take it personally and get defensive about people's supposed "tone." The tone of a text message is a matter of interpretation, and my interpretation of Ariel's tone is substantially different from yours.
For what it's worth, even people who post on this board literally every day sometimes repost topics that were up the day or the week before. And they get informed that it's been done, and they say 'ough, sorry' and conversation over. It's no big deal. You got the more formalized 'here's how you find out' just because people don't recognize you and assume you don't know how to find out, not because you're unwelcome to post informative topics.
1
We offer a search feature
if you look along the top of the board screen.
Please use it before posting so we don't clutter the board with repeat posts. Thanks.
if you look along the top of the board screen.
Please use it before posting so we don't clutter the board with repeat posts. Thanks.
1
Ditto to what I stated above. I invite you to read your response to yourself. Now, after reading it, imagine living outside this board. Imagine being new to the board. What "board screen"? Why read that first? What does she mean? Why was I scolded? The "please" sounds like my mother scolding me? Who is the "we"? Why couldn't this person just say, "yes, knew about it, and did you see that. ..."
After reading your response, would you want to visit this board of "we" people again? No. That's what happens with intolerance. It excludes.
After reading your response, would you want to visit this board of "we" people again? No. That's what happens with intolerance. It excludes.
1
If you think "please" sounds like a mother scolding, you really should not be here. I have never in my life heard anyone think that using a common courtesy was scolding. Grow up and get a life, please, because this is ridiculous.
This message was edited 5/15/2007, 9:53 AM
1