"Five ticks for everything" topic closed
Posted by: Tarquin Maynard - Portly on 24 November 2004
Errrr, why?
Yours, perplexed.
Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.
Posted on: 24 November 2004 by Steve Toy
Moderation does seem rather trigger-happy round here of late, if one doesn't mind me saying...
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 24 November 2004 by Trevor Newall
much as I enjoy alex's wit (and I do), he does enjoy winding people up, and ultimately, it catches up on you.
TN
Posted on: 24 November 2004 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Alves:
Yes, look at poor Marco.
Who?
Winston Smith
Posted on: 24 November 2004 by matthewr
Alex was intelligent and funny which is traditionally the quickest way to a ban.
Having a go at St*ll*n was the other widely acknowledged route but as he is sadly no longer here that is no longer an option.
Matthew
Posted on: 24 November 2004 by reductionist
quote:
Originally posted by Trevor Newall:
much as I enjoy alex's wit (and I do), he does enjoy winding people up, and ultimately, it catches up on you.
TN
I feel he throws a spotlight on the stupid.
>Will add something funny when I think of it.<
Posted on: 24 November 2004 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Tom
Behave.
When people threaten that which was threatened, they get banned.
Mentioning the M word will, as you know, probably lead to this thread getting pulled.
Thamks for that.
Regards
Mike
Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.
Posted on: 24 November 2004 by Adam Meredith
quote:
Originally posted by mike lacey:
Errrr, why?
Yours, perplexed.
Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.
It struck me that little of interest could be said on the subject and I am actively looking into removing ratings as they serve no useful purpose.
Posted on: 24 November 2004 by Steve Toy
quote:
It struck me that little of interest could be said on the subject and I am actively looking into removing ratings as they serve no useful purpose.
Allowing the thread to run would have been a case of asking the question before shooting...
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 24 November 2004 by David Stewart
But Adam, if you do away with the 5 tick rating how am I going to know which threads to avoid reading
David
"Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours." :Carl Sagan
Posted on: 24 November 2004 by HTK
We all have our methods.
How about a turkey rating system? Seasonal and very useful all year round.
Cheers
Harry
Posted on: 24 November 2004 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by HTK:
How about a turkey rating system?
Why not a seagull rating system?
Deane
Posted on: 24 November 2004 by JonR
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
Why not a seagull rating system?
I think Seagull might have something to say about that
JR
Posted on: 24 November 2004 by Deane F
Posted on: 24 November 2004 by long-time-dead
1 - 5 on the Richter Scale.
Does that equal minus 4 ?
Posted on: 24 November 2004 by HTK
That could work
Harry
Posted on: 25 November 2004 by Trevor Newall
quote:
Originally posted by reductionist:
quote:
Originally posted by Trevor Newall:
much as I enjoy alex's wit (and I do), he does enjoy winding people up, and ultimately, it catches up on you.
I feel he throws a spotlight on the stupid.
indeed so.
of course, some would also say it's stupid to continually bad-mouth Naim, elsewhere, if you wish to remain a member of this forum.
the 'eyes' are everywhere
TN
Posted on: 25 November 2004 by seagull
*blush* Fame at last.
I'll have to have a word with Mrs S when I get home!
Getting back to the seagull rating system...
Would that mean I would have to read EVERY thread?
Would I have moderation rights so I could pull topics that are just too dull? (e.g. "is a 102 better than a 72?")
Posted on: 26 November 2004 by Martin D
