Why Would You Only Thank One Person?
 

Here I am again, and I must get something off my chest that's been bugging me about posters and those that reply to them. Have you noticed how people will have maybe four respondents to their question, and they will thank maybe only one??? Now, I think, whether a person's advice is helpful or not, you could at least thank them for trying to help you! Am I the only one who's noticed this? <BR> <BR>L:)

Thanks Lucy for making a fool of yourself!

Lucy, get a life! Nothing interferes with this forum more than those that waste everyone's time trying to regulate all that goes on here, or as a venue to express witless insults. <BR> <BR>It's nice when someone take the time to say thank you, but it is not necessary. Sometimes several people comment, but only one actually answers the question. <BR> <BR>Those concerned can perhaps add an anticipatory thank you at the end of their question. <BR> <BR>In any event - please don't hound us with your petty etiquette demands.

EXCUSE ME, bj/xxx (you're probably the same person!) but I say it is necessary to say thank you to people when they try to be helpful, if you want to be thought of as a civilized person. The point is that several people tried to help you, and it's nice to thank them, no matter which one answered what! But considering your rude manner on this board, you'd probably not be saying thank you to anyone yourself, so what more can we expect from you? And I am certainly entitled to my opinions about this Board, whether you like them or not. There was nothing rude about my original post, unlike yours, and I'm not at all embarrassed!

O.k guys, Get ready for more fun. <BR>You can blast me too! <BR>Lucy, <BR>I agree with you that it would be nice to have people acknowledge others input with a thank you (of course not those who only post to trash someone). <BR>It makes one feel it was worht their time posting. <BR>But, as you have found out , there are some people here and in the world in general who have little or no manners. <BR>Nancy/Emily Post

Thank you all for your comments

Nancy, <BR> <BR>I knew there were other kindred souls out there. The world would be chaos if no one minded their manners! Cheers!

Lucy, you obviously have self-esteem issues and are in need of therapy. Perhaps you could join the group session with Noach and Nancy. Anyone who seriously would start a thread on this topic needs to have her head examined.

Lucy, <BR> <BR>I believe you mean "Why would you thank ONLY ONE person?" <BR>inm

Lucy makes a valid point and the people (or person) who attacked her are rude and insulting.

Well, Noach, it's a forum --- hence the name forum.

Whether or not a thank you is justified simply because someone replies to a post is indeed a matter of etiquette. Sometimes "thanks" is required for an action, sometimes not. For instance, I say "thank you" when I receive a gift through the mail from someone I know; I don't when it's part of request for funds from a charity. The question thus becomes whether etiquette "requires" a thank you to every such poster; a question (like most of the Internet) where old rules may or may not apply. <BR> <BR>Over the years I have posted scores, if not hundreds, of replies to public postings for assistance. It has never passed through my mind that I would get a thanks for doing so. I am gratified when I receive them, but I don't expect them. Maybe I've become too cynical over the relative rudeness of the Internet (which, to my great discredit, I have sometimes contributed to!), but I've never considered bulletin boards a place where the original poster should express thanks for every post -- keep in mind that people will reply literally months after the original question. Bulletin boards are too crowded as it is, and I wouldn't want people to check a thread because they think there's a new message, only to find out it's just "Thanks to all who replied." <BR> <BR>If a specific post is particularly helpful, a private reply is a nice touch (I've both received and sent these); but a public thanks is not something I anticipate.

lucy - were YOU not thanked at one time or another and your feelings got hurt and/or have a bone to pick? i've answered people's Qs on this board before and when i don't get a thank you, it doesn't bother me at all

Paul, <BR>Thanks for stating your view. (right on target IMO). <BR>P.S. - No 'thank you' required.

As I sit here,hung over,on an early sunday AM,deeply enthralled by this heady debate I feel that I must THANK each and every one who has contributed to this discussion even,if only,in a small way.God bless!!!!

And I would especialy like to thank those who did not respond.

Well first I'd like to thank Lucy for starting this inane drivel,I'd also like to thank Noach for whatever??? as well as AMS for his indepth coverage of south Florida and my significant other for allowing me to use the PC on occasion and last but not least my parents(Mr.&Mrs.Mystery)without whom none of this would be possible. THANKS !!

I agree with Paul on this one. In fact, it bugs me when people start a thread and then break back in with a thank you for every person who responds. It doubles the size of the thread, of course, which makes it take longer to load. I say it is better to say thank you when you decide you have received enough information and you want to signal that others should consider your question fully answered. <BR> <BR>Thank you.

Have always done my thanking to Fodorites in private, away from the forum. Suppose Lucy, etal., want to see each and every thanks. Get a life! <BR>

Cindy, <BR> <BR>I never said that a poster needed to "break back in" to answer after every post, although there's nothing wrong with that. I just say when somebody goes out of their way to help you, a thank you is certainly not out of order no matter where it comes in, and no matter how long the thread gets.