Forums | MacLife
You are not logged in.
#1 2003-01-29 12:04 am
- Shlo
- FITE YOU!!11!1
- From: Chicago, Illinois, USA
- Registered: 2001-08-26
- Posts: 1267
i think we need to talk...
mac daddy, i think you have a problem. when was the last time you saw the sun?
Rozzlapeed:I remember hearing that Gen. Horner, CENTCOM commander in Gulf War I, is one of the signatories. I think we can trust his point-of-view to an extent.
Cyberpawz:Yeah, and what has he done since?
Offline
#3 2003-01-29 1:19 am
- delta wolph
- Member

- From: SoCal
- Registered: 2002-12-30
- Posts: 3471
Re: i think we need to talk...
see the PM button? click it!
Offline
#4 2003-01-29 1:32 am
Re: i think we need to talk...
![]()
mac daddy, i think you have a problem. when was the last time you saw the sun?
That's a stupid question...
Right here
Just so it's known... I'm actually losing ground on the most number of posts count... at one point (say... a month ago?) I was one below Justine... I just checked now, and well... she's flying way ahead.
I see the sun everyday on my way to work (for 11:30am) and watch it set while working, then get home at night (leave at 10:00pm). I gernally come on here 10min before work, and 30min after, depending if my friends are online I might be on a bit longer before doing something else, and (like now) 10min just before bed.
Any other details you need to know?
"The only thing better than a woman you can control in bed, is one that you can't."
Offline
#5 2003-01-29 1:34 am
- delta wolph
- Member

- From: SoCal
- Registered: 2002-12-30
- Posts: 3471
Re: i think we need to talk...
we need a minute by minute schedule 
Offline
#7 2003-01-29 1:40 am
- delta wolph
- Member

- From: SoCal
- Registered: 2002-12-30
- Posts: 3471
Re: i think we need to talk...
i dont get it......
wait, thats nothing new
Offline
#8 2003-01-29 7:45 am
- Shlo
- FITE YOU!!11!1
- From: Chicago, Illinois, USA
- Registered: 2001-08-26
- Posts: 1267
Re: i think we need to talk...
more info, hmm, copies of 3 forms of photo ID, a recent utilities statement, social security number, ATM pin number, home adress, security system code where applicable and where the smurf i put my keys.
Rozzlapeed:I remember hearing that Gen. Horner, CENTCOM commander in Gulf War I, is one of the signatories. I think we can trust his point-of-view to an extent.
Cyberpawz:Yeah, and what has he done since?
Offline
#9 2003-01-29 7:52 am
- Shlo
- FITE YOU!!11!1
- From: Chicago, Illinois, USA
- Registered: 2001-08-26
- Posts: 1267
Re: i think we need to talk...
oh, and i was attempting to imply that macdaddy spends too much time here in a jokign type fashion, as aubry had many while md had few. funny, sort of.
...well, no. 
Rozzlapeed:I remember hearing that Gen. Horner, CENTCOM commander in Gulf War I, is one of the signatories. I think we can trust his point-of-view to an extent.
Cyberpawz:Yeah, and what has he done since?
Offline
#10 2003-01-29 8:28 am
Re: i think we need to talk...
aubrey post over 32 times a day! thats way too much. aubrey, you're still in high school i take it?
There are 10 type of people in the world... those you know binary and those that don't.
Offline
#11 2003-01-29 8:44 am
- registered_user
- bulletproof
- From: padding: zero-pixels;
- Registered: 2000-12-19
- Posts: 16026
- Website
Re: i think we need to talk...
aubrey post over 32 times a day! thats way too much. aubrey, you're still in high school i take it?
That's because he posts something in every thread, whether or not he actually has something to actually contribute or not.
I stamp him with the mark of shame as well:
SHAME!
Offline
#12 2003-01-29 8:51 am
Re: i think we need to talk...
oh, and i was attempting to imply that macdaddy spends too much time here in a jokign type fashion, as aubry had many while md had few. funny, sort of.
...well, no.
It was a joke? I'm sorry, I had no idea...
"The only thing better than a woman you can control in bed, is one that you can't."
Offline
#13 2003-01-29 10:16 am
Re: i think we need to talk...
That's because he posts something in every thread, whether or not he actually has something to actually contribute or not.
I notice that you've been posting some white noise recently. too.
Or maybe it's just the part of me that doesn't want to loose ground. 
Offline
#15 2003-01-29 11:01 am
- registered_user
- bulletproof
- From: padding: zero-pixels;
- Registered: 2000-12-19
- Posts: 16026
- Website
Re: i think we need to talk...
That's because he posts something in every thread, whether or not he actually has something to actually contribute or not.I notice that you've been posting some white noise recently. too.
Or maybe it's just the part of me that doesn't want to loose ground.
Yeah, I admit it, I'm guilty. I have been posting more than my fair share of white noise recently. And in fairness, I think that everyone does to a certain degree. Though I also feel that I post more substantive things as well. I just hope that my signal to noise ratio isn't too much on the noisy side, and I don't think it is. And I'm certain that I'm not even coming close to aubrey's noise level. I mean, you'll never see a pic like the one shlo posted with my name on it. I might get 4 in a row or something (typically in the mornings here), but that pic is just ridiculous.
You know what I think would be really great? A user court. Put a member on trial as a spammer, or as a troll, and allow other users to testify, and the user in question to present a defense. Punishment would put it over the top and make it dumb, but just for fun I think it might be neat. I'd even volunteer to go first -- under the stipulation that it doesn't get locked right away, and that anyone who contributes accepts that they may be next on trial. Perhaps the accused would get the privelege of selecting the next person to put on trial.
That way, there'd be a concensus of what the user posts, more often than not. It would be really cool if we could get a forum for it, and if the Admins would create a few new titles for it, like "spammer," "informed," or "nonsensical" that the tried user could be marked with after the verdict is reached.
I'm pretty sure that the Admins wouldn't go for it, but it would be neat if they would. Especially because it would be totally voluntary.
Offline
#16 2003-01-29 11:46 am
- Slarty
- Member
- From: MAF. Duh.
- Registered: 2002-08-25
- Posts: 1938
Re: i think we need to talk...
High post counts=no life.
Trust me. I speak from experience.
Git off my lawn, ya durn kids!
Offline
#17 2003-01-29 11:56 am
- registered_user
- bulletproof
- From: padding: zero-pixels;
- Registered: 2000-12-19
- Posts: 16026
- Website
Re: i think we need to talk...
High post counts=no life.
*bows head in shame*
Well, on the bright side, I've been here a few years, so it's not like....
ugh.
*slumps over in shame*
Offline
#18 2003-01-30 12:40 am
Re: i think we need to talk...
That's because he posts something in every thread, whether or not he actually has something to actually contribute or not.I notice that you've been posting some white noise recently. too.
Or maybe it's just the part of me that doesn't want to loose ground.Yeah, I admit it, I'm guilty. I have been posting more than my fair share of white noise recently. And in fairness, I think that everyone does to a certain degree. Though I also feel that I post more substantive things as well. I just hope that my signal to noise ratio isn't too much on the noisy side, and I don't think it is. And I'm certain that I'm not even coming close to aubrey's noise level. I mean, you'll never see a pic like the one shlo posted with my name on it. I might get 4 in a row or something (typically in the mornings here), but that pic is just ridiculous.
You know what I think would be really great? A user court. Put a member on trial as a spammer, or as a troll, and allow other users to testify, and the user in question to present a defense. Punishment would put it over the top and make it dumb, but just for fun I think it might be neat. I'd even volunteer to go first -- under the stipulation that it doesn't get locked right away, and that anyone who contributes accepts that they may be next on trial. Perhaps the accused would get the privelege of selecting the next person to put on trial.
That way, there'd be a concensus of what the user posts, more often than not. It would be really cool if we could get a forum for it, and if the Admins would create a few new titles for it, like "spammer," "informed," or "nonsensical" that the tried user could be marked with after the verdict is reached.
I'm pretty sure that the Admins wouldn't go for it, but it would be neat if they would. Especially because it would be totally voluntary.
At first I thought that this would make the MAF somewhat like Survivor... you'd have to be cool, otherwise you would get voted off. People would form alliances and stuff, and it would suck.
But making it all volunary and without punishment might be kinda fun... Maybe you can start a test run at Unplugged or something and see how it goes.
"Excuse me while I go do manly things in a sensitive way." --Guybrush Threepwood
Offline
