Off Topic
Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
( , Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
( , Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
I'm not convinced this is a good idea.
I do realise the puerile trolling has been an issue - I say grow a thicker skin or find the door.
A couple of "Geoffrey Robertson's" to highlight some issues.
If I had Rob on ignore then surely there's a good chance I wouldn't have received this post and thus wouldn't be writing this reply and I imagine a few people couldn't read the post cause I had replied to it - even tho I wouldn't be replying because I wouldn't have been able to see it in the first place...
Tautological much?
The other query is this - atm when say... Shambo gets in a huff with me cause I've replied to 1 of his posts or replies he deletes the whole thread and then frequently re-opens the thread, thus removing everyone else's carefully thought, poignant arguments.
Won't that be the case from the outset with this plan? Why should everyone else miss out on a good thread just because I've pointed out to a type-writer bashing monkey what an idiotic argument they're making.
My solution is as a couple of others have suggested - remove the reply function from qotw and make OT the battle ground for the replies. That way if Rory wants to slander my employment choice he has to ref. the link in OT and I can choose to respond to him rather than having to deal with it in my own thread.
( , Wed 1 Aug 2012, 23:52, 2 replies, latest was 13 years ago)
I do realise the puerile trolling has been an issue - I say grow a thicker skin or find the door.
A couple of "Geoffrey Robertson's" to highlight some issues.
If I had Rob on ignore then surely there's a good chance I wouldn't have received this post and thus wouldn't be writing this reply and I imagine a few people couldn't read the post cause I had replied to it - even tho I wouldn't be replying because I wouldn't have been able to see it in the first place...
Tautological much?
The other query is this - atm when say... Shambo gets in a huff with me cause I've replied to 1 of his posts or replies he deletes the whole thread and then frequently re-opens the thread, thus removing everyone else's carefully thought, poignant arguments.
Won't that be the case from the outset with this plan? Why should everyone else miss out on a good thread just because I've pointed out to a type-writer bashing monkey what an idiotic argument they're making.
My solution is as a couple of others have suggested - remove the reply function from qotw and make OT the battle ground for the replies. That way if Rory wants to slander my employment choice he has to ref. the link in OT and I can choose to respond to him rather than having to deal with it in my own thread.
( , Wed 1 Aug 2012, 23:52, 2 replies, latest was 13 years ago)
Yeah, sorry about that.
Turns out rob being a bellend unifies folk, though.
( , Wed 1 Aug 2012, 23:58, Reply)
Turns out rob being a bellend unifies folk, though.
( , Wed 1 Aug 2012, 23:58, Reply)
I think you should all gaz him and ask why he keeps sickipedia going if he's not a racist.
( , Thu 2 Aug 2012, 0:00, Reply)
( , Thu 2 Aug 2012, 0:00, Reply)
Meh.
1 tenth of my life down the internet's shitter.
EDIT: I'm sorry for calling you a dumb cunt - that was rude. Plz don't put me on ignore etc...
( , Thu 2 Aug 2012, 0:23, Reply)
1 tenth of my life down the internet's shitter.
EDIT: I'm sorry for calling you a dumb cunt - that was rude. Plz don't put me on ignore etc...
( , Thu 2 Aug 2012, 0:23, Reply)
& now I'm on side with Battered as well?!
FFS!
Fucking polarising topic is polarising.
( , Thu 2 Aug 2012, 7:29, Reply)
FFS!
Fucking polarising topic is polarising.
( , Thu 2 Aug 2012, 7:29, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread