When starting threads
When starting threads
Pinky;622511 wrote: As I said, I don't want to horrible, so I'm not naming names or owtYou should get a medal for managing to use "horrible" as a verb, though. That's wonderful. I'll try it at least once a day for a week and see if we can get the syntax to catch on. I'm off to the pub to see if I can nasty for an hour or so.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When starting threads
Agreed Pinky, it annoys me too, very good point and another good reason for more mods to merge.
When starting threads
I wouldn't dream of saying 'hi' as a thread, or 'bye' for that matter either. I'd keep on going back to it to see if people had replied, and if they didn't I might have to commit cyber-suicide! 
PS - HI!:D
PS - HI!:D
When starting threads
Elvira;622545 wrote: I wouldn't dream of saying 'hi' as a thread, or 'bye' for that matter either. I'd keep on going back to it to see if people had replied, and if they didn't I might have to commit cyber-suicide!
PS - HI!:D
:wah: It is annoying though ain't it when they is no subject in the title.
The worst I see on forums is just simply, 'bored' or 'I'm bored'. BorING more like.
PS - HI!:D
:wah: It is annoying though ain't it when they is no subject in the title.
The worst I see on forums is just simply, 'bored' or 'I'm bored'. BorING more like.
-
Betty Boop
- Posts: 16988
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: The end of the World
When starting threads
:-3 :-2 
:wah:
:wah:-
Betty Boop
- Posts: 16988
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: The end of the World
When starting threads
C'mon Pinky we're just pulling your leg, you set yourself up there girl!
Anyway whats wrong with your pyjamas? :wah:
Anyway whats wrong with your pyjamas? :wah:
-
Betty Boop
- Posts: 16988
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: The end of the World
When starting threads
Pinky;622568 wrote: They went mouldy because I forgot about them being in the machine. Hell, at least I talked about summat
Getting out of bitch mode now
I should think so too, chill petal, chill!
Getting out of bitch mode now
I should think so too, chill petal, chill!
When starting threads
I'm circumcized.
Wait...this isn't the right thread?
Wait...this isn't the right thread?
When starting threads
crazygal;622517 wrote: Agreed Pinky, it annoys me too, very good point and another good reason for more mods to merge.
I've looked at threads before that didn't really have topics and thought about merging them but then how do you decide what to merge them with since they have no topic?
Then the original threads disappear and 9 times out of 10 the person who posted the thread will go on a rant about being deleted then it takes another whole thread just to explain where the thread is and there is still general unrest. Just speaking from the past here.
Also, when posts are moved to a separate thread because they go off topic, 9.9 times out of 10 the people complain because it looks like they started a thread when they didn't.
Basically, if a mod wants to take a mod action they need to have 24 hours available to deal with all the backlash. So, perhaps I'll go on a thread merging rampage, but not until I have a week to maintain a "we hate you koan" thread and not until I have full agreement from at least two other mods as to what threads will be 'victimised'
[/no one appreciates me rant]
I've looked at threads before that didn't really have topics and thought about merging them but then how do you decide what to merge them with since they have no topic?
Then the original threads disappear and 9 times out of 10 the person who posted the thread will go on a rant about being deleted then it takes another whole thread just to explain where the thread is and there is still general unrest. Just speaking from the past here.
Also, when posts are moved to a separate thread because they go off topic, 9.9 times out of 10 the people complain because it looks like they started a thread when they didn't.
Basically, if a mod wants to take a mod action they need to have 24 hours available to deal with all the backlash. So, perhaps I'll go on a thread merging rampage, but not until I have a week to maintain a "we hate you koan" thread and not until I have full agreement from at least two other mods as to what threads will be 'victimised'
[/no one appreciates me rant]
When starting threads
Crap.
Now Koan is in charge.
We're all screwed.
;)
Now Koan is in charge.
We're all screwed.
;)
When starting threads
JacksDad;622710 wrote: Crap.
Now Koan is in charge.
We're all screwed.
;)
was that innuendo :-3
Now Koan is in charge.
We're all screwed.
;)
was that innuendo :-3
When starting threads
koan;622703 wrote: I've looked at threads before that didn't really have topics and thought about merging them but then how do you decide what to merge them with since they have no topic?
Then the original threads disappear and 9 times out of 10 the person who posted the thread will go on a rant about being deleted then it takes another whole thread just to explain where the thread is and there is still general unrest. Just speaking from the past here.
Also, when posts are moved to a separate thread because they go off topic, 9.9 times out of 10 the people complain because it looks like they started a thread when they didn't.
Basically, if a mod wants to take a mod action they need to have 24 hours available to deal with all the backlash. So, perhaps I'll go on a thread merging rampage, but not until I have a week to maintain a "we hate you koan" thread and not until I have full agreement from at least two other mods as to what threads will be 'victimised'
[/no one appreciates me rant]
I would be happy to do it. I didn't mean move posts, I agree that it wouldn't work and it would also mess up the threads. I meant whole threads. There are so many in say General that should be in others like one I just replied to that should be in Television, not General. Please met me move, on my hands and knees here and doing lots of kissing. I hate feet too! :p
Then the original threads disappear and 9 times out of 10 the person who posted the thread will go on a rant about being deleted then it takes another whole thread just to explain where the thread is and there is still general unrest. Just speaking from the past here.
Also, when posts are moved to a separate thread because they go off topic, 9.9 times out of 10 the people complain because it looks like they started a thread when they didn't.
Basically, if a mod wants to take a mod action they need to have 24 hours available to deal with all the backlash. So, perhaps I'll go on a thread merging rampage, but not until I have a week to maintain a "we hate you koan" thread and not until I have full agreement from at least two other mods as to what threads will be 'victimised'
[/no one appreciates me rant]
I would be happy to do it. I didn't mean move posts, I agree that it wouldn't work and it would also mess up the threads. I meant whole threads. There are so many in say General that should be in others like one I just replied to that should be in Television, not General. Please met me move, on my hands and knees here and doing lots of kissing. I hate feet too! :p