In my twisted way of thinking, a blind homer statement should only be made if you are willing to put money on it. If someones comes out and says we are going to the AFC Championship game, they should be willing to back it up with a friendly wager. If they aren't, they are lying to both you and themselves. If you think RT will end up being a better QB than Brady, we can lay out the criteria, and then open an account for 15/20 years from now. Is it POSSIBLE for him to be better, sure, just like it is POSSIBLE that Pat White to come back to the NFL and be the best QB in the history of the league, but I would consider it to be HIGHLY unlikely.
i dont give 'no thanks' unless the person is being a douche. i dont think you should give that for disagreeing
What I find to be the case is that I will at times look at an obnoxious post, then wonder if it was taken out of context, or if the person is having a bad day. So...I look at his or her other posts to check.
Sometimes, it turns out that said poster is just a douchebag...so they end up getting a no thanks or two from me.
i've never used the "no thanks" option. if i disagree with an opinion, i can write a post portraying my point of view. no need to "no thank" someone for having a different opinion. there are some notorious posters though, who are worth neither a "no thanks" nor a reply. it's just not worth even the second it takes to click on the button.
i use the "thanks" button mainly to show appreciation for a profound and well thought out post and to applaud the effort for providing good conversation.
Like a lot of you guys, I agree, it shouldn't be abused to stalk people. I sparsely use the 'no thanks' unless I think the post really deserves it. Like Nubs said, for every 5 I give, there's probably 10x that for thanking people,
I'm definitely quite liberal with that one