HomeFactopediaBrainoffsRankingsCommunityLog In
You know 0 facts





Sun 28 Dec 08 #1 
Kristian
Olympian


Almost 95% of the people on Factacular, beneath there name, when they post a message is given that they are: Contributor! 3% are Members..., 1% are New Members and below 1% are people like: Factactix (Javalyne), Fact Daddy (Bright But Idle)...

I think there should be more different levels...
Like perhaps:
* If the person knows more below 10.000 facts --- New Member or other
* From 10.000 facts to 20.000 fact --- suggest one

And maybe according to the number of contributions:
* From 1-1000 --- Modest Contributor
* 1001-2000 --- Medium Contributor
* Over 3000 --- Extra Contributor


Knows 37813 facts
like | send message


Sun 28 Dec 08 #2 
scmwns

There's a lot of different ways to slice it. Personally, I think those ranking in the top 100 of all time as far as scoring but with zero contributions should have Deadweight under their names.


like | send message


Sun 28 Dec 08 #3 
kevg
The Grumpinator

would have taken me 18 months to move from new member Kris, and i don't do modest !!!


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Sun 28 Dec 08 #4 
Kristian
Olympian

I was just giving examples Kev...


Knows 37813 facts
like | send message


Sun 28 Dec 08 #5 
kevg
The Grumpinator

hehehe I know fella , sorry


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Sun 28 Dec 08 #6 
jmaxg
Contributor

So, ya want to get the Count to take his original site structure and re-structure/re-program it to increase its complexity by a factor of 4 or more?

:-)

Ummmm...good luck wid dat!


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sun 28 Dec 08 #7 
JMK
Editor

Took me about five months to get to 10,000 facts because I prefer to just play challenges rather than learn facts. I don't think after a few months on here you could consider someone a new member. The way it is now new member easily identifies those who have just joined the site which is how it should be.

Can't see the need to differentiate the levels of contributions like that either.


Knows 47288 facts
like | send message


Sun 28 Dec 08 #8 
Kristian
Olympian

I was just improvising there, giving an example.

How about this:
0-1000 * New Member
1000-10.000 * Member
10.001-20.000 * _____
20.000-50.000 * _____
over 50.000 * Huge Member

But then the according to the Contributions...
0-50 * Modest Contributor
51-200 * Random Contributor
201-1000 * Contributor
over 1000 * Huge Contributor


Knows 37813 facts
like | send message


Sun 28 Dec 08 #9 
JMK
Editor

Can't see the need to differentiate between contributors and certainly don't see the need to differentiate on the number of facts known - the total facts are displayed and speak for themselves.


Knows 47288 facts
like | send message


Sun 28 Dec 08 #10 
Kristian
Olympian

Then the tag Contributor shouldn't be shown, since almost 100% are contributors.


Knows 37813 facts
like | send message


Sun 28 Dec 08 #11 
JMK
Editor

Why not - it recognises that people are putting something into the site.


Knows 47288 facts
like | send message


Sun 28 Dec 08 #12 
Kristian
Olympian

Hmm... it seems to me too similar.
I think two or three more tags would be lovely.


Knows 37813 facts
like | send message


Mon 29 Dec 08 #13 
jmaxg
Contributor

No.....it says what it says.......you contribute, be it one fact or thousands, you are a "contributor".

You are either a "new member" or a "member"....depending on the time that you have been interacting with the site.

Seems simple enough to me.

K, mate, this idea may be cool to you. But for many of us, the way things are says it all.

Also there are concepts involved here that may only apply to the owner of the site. As you don't own the site, then you may not be privvy to certain demographical considerations.......who wishes to advertise in the site based on member categories. That sort of thing.

In any case, how about the old time honoured principal about such things, especially if the current system seems to be working......

"KIS" - Keep It Simple


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Mon 29 Dec 08 #14 
Tushers
Contributor

Kris i happen to agree with you to a point......

i am running a forum in another site and it is dead easy to set this up.

it could be a lot more fun, i do not think calling someone who contributes one fact and that fact being where they live, good enough to be called a contributor at all.

i also think it unfair that the "select few" get cool names while the rest of us plebs are left with "contributor"

on another forum i was a member of the new members HATED being drawn attention to, so newbie was out as was anything like that so we did the following system

0 - 100 posts = Baby
100 - 250 = Junior
250 - 500 = Senior
500 - 1000 =
1000 - 2500 =
2500 - 5000 =
5000 - 10,000 =
10,000 - 20,000 =
and so on, but it is good incentive to do a few challenges to move to the next level.. makes it interesting.

And wouldnt be hard to set up at all.

i have left ones blank but they can be filled with what ever you wanted.


Knows 24444 facts
like | send message


Mon 29 Dec 08 #15 
kevg
The Grumpinator

I know I',m probably missing something but does it really matter ??


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #16 
wabzy

Oh, this smacks of the Big Enders and the Little Enders. Just let sleeping dogs lie on this and have contributors make sure that WHAT they contribute is really a GOOD contribution, an asset, a contribution which will elevate the site again instead of contributing to ia slippery slide into the cartoon level. If someone make a contribution that sucks tell the contributor it is innapropriate. Period. Listen to kevg, since I know nobody wants to listen to me. I really don't care anymore but it is a damned shame to have witnessed an excellent site slip into a mediocre one. How about an assessment as to WHY THIS happened ansd we try to rememdy this situation before everyone leaves. That's my opinion.

WHO CARES if someone contributes one point or 200 or 10,000. What are in those 10.000 questions? Are they all premium question, well thought out or just "stuffers"? There's a big difference. Now, do we want this to be a sight for movies , and perfumes and Bond and Harry Potter or history, language, classics, geography, pure science (not blurry pictures of animals) or vague and easily incorrect lifespans of animals. Not inane collections of people. Does what I am saying make sense?

People, this sight is going, going and soon will be so ordinary. So many peole are fed up with the hijinx and I warn you all to take stock of what is going on. I am NOT saying there are BAD people here. Everyone is good. We need to refocus this and I thnk the Count needs to be consulted in this and ecuse me for saying this, I do not think that the editors are the only people who should speak with him.

Let's make plans to set things right because I think one of two things will happen very soon. 1) This will be a teeny-bopper site or 2) it will be dominated so much by so few people that other good players will leave for more serious sites.

Think it over. I speak from the heart. I love Factaculat. I don't hate a single person on here. I want to see it get back to normal. Comments? Please...lets hear them. I have a hide, not a skin!


like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #17 
kevg
The Grumpinator

I never thought I'd have to do it but I agree with you Wabzy.
We've got more cheats in the Dailies and if I'm correct they have been welcomed into competitions under different names. can something not be done re IP addresses, losing interest. Plus so many of these brainoffs are turning into guessing games, I'm not brilliant but always been good at quizzes, now I find myself struggling to recognise any of the 4 answers given cos the subjects are so obscure. This no longer fun but a glorified chat site. I'm happy to chat but I think the site has lost it's direction.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #18 
Tushers
Contributor

yea Kev.... i agree with both of you!!!

i agree not everyone will love every topic contributed.... but when i saw more library code books go in that was it really for me.. people giivng out from day one re teh dewey system but more are added and by the looks of the thread there are plans to add deyew numbers for every sub section......

that is just the most recent example in my mind.

the numerous fake people joining is absurd. do you really think someone can come in and win all teh daily's with what a few hundred facts, god i had a thousand and still hadnt worked out how the site worked.

i think 2009 will see a lot more of us leaving Kev.


Knows 24444 facts
like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #19 
JMK
Editor

There are no plans to add more Dewey numbers at all Tushers


Knows 47288 facts
like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #20 
Tushers
Contributor

I also think the editors [i respect the ones we have] but they are not diverse enough.

like Wabzy said they are all the same genre.

we need a more diverse cross section there.


Knows 24444 facts
like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #21 
jmaxg
Contributor

Which genre are they?

Horror, thriller, action or romantic?

I have always thought of java as a mix of all 4.....although more thriller than horror........except when I REALLY stuff up!

LOL!


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #22 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Got no problem with Editors , they can only enter what is put to them. Time to start searching the encyclpedias for proper questions or just start some more chat topics I suppose. I have contributed stuff, which occasionally turns up but too much crap in there for me at moment.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #23 
JMK
Editor

Good idea Kev, if you want some different topics, add them. Also, if there are some specific topics that you really think shouldn't be in randoms then let us know. If enough people agree then we could look at them again.


Knows 47288 facts
like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #24 
Tushers
Contributor

But JMK, its not about people or members the editors make all the decisions and carry them through sometime we know other times we done, some times we dont need to!!

like the banning of Kris, Allan and JMAXG from the daily... like where did that come from? no one complained, but the editors decided......... i wont continue... but you understand


Knows 24444 facts
like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #25 
kevg
The Grumpinator

just to clarify for me, if a new topic is added does it get "preference" in any way into the brainoffs ?? are additions to current topics treated the same ?? No nastiness involved just want to clarify so i can organise meself.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #26 
JMK
Editor

No, new subjects and additions don't get preference. However I have noticed the computer program sometimes seems to latch onto new additions for a few days, like it's recent fascination with lighthouses. There is nothing that can be done about that and it usually settles down after a day or two.


Knows 47288 facts
like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #27 
wabzy

There has to be some sensibility added to the subjects added. There is no reason every topic submitted must be added to Factopedia. It has gotten totally out of control. People are either angry or just leaving.

I suggest that a group of us, of wide diversity, get together and brainstorm about what we can do to make things right, more balance. What rules need to be set for new additions, things like that. I have my ideas and I am sure others do as well.

Who agrees that this is necessary? This is not a slam at the editors. It is an attempt to save and restore Factacular before it turns into a junkyard. Maybe some topics need to be removed or "retired" for special events.

Who wants to participate? We can start as soon as I am back from my trip. I want to be a part of this since it was my idea.

1. Wabzy
2.


like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #28 
JMK
Editor

Your suggestion about some subjects not being in randoms is already in existence.

There is no reason to not accept subjects for factopedia provided they are factually correct and play well. Most subjects submitted do not end up available for random play but are there for those who wish to play them by choice.

The Count has delegated responsibility for these decisions to the editors. We are always willing to listen to and consider suggestions members may have.


Knows 47288 facts
like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #29 
Tushers
Contributor

I think what wabzy is trying to say is....

pardon me if i am wrong...

that some topics being submitted are rediclous, and maybe we could do a clear out. is there a way for editors to see what topics are rarely played? if there is this would help, as if say a good topic is hit say 100 times a week and another topic is hi 5, then maybe we could delete this one...

i think Wabzy feels that some topics let the site down, like dewey, sorry to keep bringing that one up but not the recent one the orignal one is impossible to play, there are a few such impossible topics.


Knows 24444 facts
like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #30 
JMK
Editor

I fail to see what harm these topics are doing if they are not in randoms. I think you would also find that a subject disliked by one person is liked by another.


Knows 47288 facts
like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #31 
kevg
The Grumpinator

See topic i posted in another topic. JMK is right , no reason why any subjects should get thrown out of Factopedia, what we have to concentrate on is the stuff in the randoms. If you play a specific subject you get what you asked for, in randoms I want to see a few more "intelligent" subjects. Go to General Discussion/TOPICS for a more in depth (or not) assessment


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #32 
wabzy

I will go there. There IS a good reason for the editors to judge the propriety of the topics if Factacular isn't going to turn into a mish-mash of ridiculousness. I know some topics are put aside and not played in the randoms but maybe some of the topics already in the randoms are not worthy of being there, JMK. By the way, who are the whole lot of editors making decisions these days now that Stu and GJ are out of the picture?


like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #33 
JMK
Editor

The other editors are myself, javalyne, Scratch, Rodbox, Scmwns and Cazza. Stu and GJ are still officially editors.

I was referring to Tushers' suggestion of deleting topics Wabzy. The subject of which topics should be included in randoms is a different subject which is being discussed in Kev's thread.


Knows 47288 facts
like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #34 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Is Cazza still about ?? Tell her to answer her emails !!!


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #35 
Kristian
Olympian

I don't see Rodbox and Cazza.

I don't even know them, they must have been here a long time ago.


Knows 37813 facts
like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #36 
JMK
Editor

Some editors are active in the editor's forum but not on the site much.

Kev, I have no control over who answers your emails :)


Knows 47288 facts
like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #37 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Caz was one of the original gang, teabag, GJ, Susanna, Cazza and me


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #38 
Tushers
Contributor

so really our editors are you JMK, Scratch and Java, i know scwms is here but very quiet!

so one man, and 3 ladies.

I think the list you posted is diverse, but then its not really when you take out the ones who are no longer here although they are still active if that makes sense.

and JMK i fully understand if a fact is a fact and its entered then its good, please dont misunderstand, i was refering to what Wabzyhad said and she seemed to be looking for a better quality of topic...

There does seem to be different rules for different people though

i remember entering something to be added, i honestly forget what now, but i was told no because it was too long, however.... the dewey one for a boring example had way more. as did others.

some people can enter facts filled with editing errors and be told not to worry while others are hounded till its picture perfect. and i am not talking about new member as they of course need help.

One of the contributions i made i stupedly entered it in backwards to what we already had.... and i was told to go away and re order them, it took me hours.... then the idiot that i am i added a topic i didnt know existed, again backwards to what was here, and i was told i think by you JMK that i wasnt to worry you could do it with one click... i was mad teh other person had not given me the same help.


the whole point Kris was making here was trying to make the site more fun and exciting, with our headings. i still agree they should be changed. for fun factor.


Knows 24444 facts
like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #39 
JMK
Editor

I repeat Tushers that some editors are active in the editors' forum but not so much on the site. So no, Scratch, Java and I are not the only editors. We are the main ones who do contributions, and therefore are the most visible, that is all.

The contribution you were adding was available for randoms and therefore we wanted to keep it as well known items. Dewey on the other hand is not available for randoms.

It depends on what the errors are whether we get the contributor to fix them or do it as editors. As you note we provide more help to new members.


Knows 47288 facts
like | send message


Sat 10 Jan 09 #40 
Tushers
Contributor

ah yes JMK. dont get me wrong, your doing a great job, i think we are as mere members trying to help in some way to keep the site alive new and refreshing and not be waving good bye to our friends


Knows 24444 facts
like | send message


Sun 11 Jan 09 #41 
kevg
The Grumpinator

tell you what, when it gets sorted call me . I'm out of this


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Sun 11 Jan 09 #42 
wabzy

JMK, you are an active editor, so is java and scratch. scmwns is barely present and rodbox and cazza have been MIA for ages. let's be honest about this. We have three editors.

JMK, I like you but you have to soften up on this now.. You must speak to us as people not subjects and listen. This site is in touble. First of all i can tell you that there has to be a limit on the number of items entered into a topic. Otherwise it does become a guessing game. Second, as editor you have to have the strentgth to say NO to people who come to you with junk or to tell them it will be put in the "jumk pile" , certainly a nicer name can be thought of, and they CANNOt trickle into the mainstream. It just has to happen. This morning kev left. He thinks it is a quessing game and so do I. I hope you will read robox's entry. We need to think this over or lots of people will leave. There are too many competitions, too. We need the Count's input. I will be leaving and I give rodbox my vote in everything.


like | send message


Sun 11 Jan 09 #43 
Tushers
Contributor

Wabzy just gave me an idea... probably go down like a lead balloon but here goes....

can we make a new section called everything else and in here we put all the topics that do not appear in the daily's there fore we will accomplish 4 things

1. people will know what is and is not included in randoms
2. people who want to play obscure subjects can easily find them
3. Java has one place to look for her obscure jive!!!!
4. people can add any topic they like and it will either be educational or obscure.

I would love to hear the counts opinion on this topic and many others, i know he has a young family and is busy and he started this for fun and little work, i also know he covers all the costs of the site, hosting etc, but if he were to come in and say for example... i want minimal input to teh site and JMK and Java are in charge, we then know those 2 people have the final word, how ever as it stands we are constantly looking to speak to someone higher up.

I dont think the site is dying, i think we are loosing quality honest members being replaced by multiple profiles and cheats. the daily is no longer fun, too many cheats. you cant say no to someone wanting to enter a competition without solid proof that they do have multiple accounts, there jsut has to be a way around this.


Knows 24444 facts
like | send message


Sun 11 Jan 09 #44 
USS Palladin
Contributor

If you play the site for FUN....what do you care is in a random?
Oh I get it, it isn't fun if you don't have a chance of winning?
Or you don't like it because you aren't looking as smart as you used to when the site gave you the same old question, time after time after time?
Rod is correct in that the site has changed, competition tends to bring out either the worst or the best in people. Brings out the cheats, the frustration the pettiness.
But Rod is wrong about the site no longer being one for learning, you can learn a lot about a lot of different subjects and a lot about certain people.
I myself have contributed topics that according to you all are crap. LOL! Some of them are, but I can also say that as I look over the list of folks in this forum that have posted that you all have topics that I just love to hate. So what???? You spent your time and effort in getting them ready, they are factually correct so they MERIT being included in the factopedia.
Do they merit being included in randoms? Well the editors decide that and I for one think they have been doing a good job.
Obviously the site cannot please everybody. Never has, never will. Some will find the questions to arcane, too hard, too easy or they just don't like the format. Most of the folks that leave for those reasons don't bitch about it, they just move on to something that fits their needs. The folks I know that have left, have left because of the bitching, whining, backstabbing and cheating.
The Count has chosen his editors and they have done a fine job, but honestly going through the factopedia and cherry picking the subjects in the randoms will make the quizzes as boring as they were before they opened up more subjects.
I suggest that when you play you invest less of your ego into your effort and more of the fun quotient. I don't necessarily like questions on Dewey, motorcyles, country by area, scientific names of plants, visigoth kings, Polish Kings, etc, etc, etc,. What I do love though is taking my best shot at what you have to throw at me as I expect you to do with some of my contributions. You may know it, may know it and also be lucky or just plain lucky. As long as you don't cheat it is all good.
Rod the site has always been about points, maybe it was points for learning but still anything that involves points and human beings means competition. It is the spirit of the competition and the nature of the competitors that define it. The competitive spirit is still here, it is the nature of the competitors that have changed I am afraid.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Sun 11 Jan 09 #45 
Tushers
Contributor

Pall i think you know me well enough to know my ego has nothing to do with what i have said, iam upsest you think so....

i will not leave because of cheats... they will soon get bored. i do not think there has been any bitching on here lately.

i am mearly offering suggestions to maybe make the site better...


Knows 24444 facts
like | send message


Sun 11 Jan 09 #46 
Possum
Contributor

I have been on the site since the beginning of July, and I have had all positive experiences. I like the fact that I'm meeting people from Australia, New Zealand, Macedonia, Portugal, Wales, Ireland, England, Scotland, Philippines...(sorry If I left off your country). It is annoying sometimes when there are extremely obscure questions in the randoms or the daily brainoffs, but they are annoying to most players, so we all have an even chance. Someone can come to this site and play no challenges or brainoffs and just play quizzes on the topics they like, and have a great time. Others love sending and receiving challenges and partipating in tournaments. Everyone can use this site as much or as little as they like.


Knows 48008 facts
like | send message


Sun 11 Jan 09 #47 
USS Palladin
Contributor

I don't recall mentioning anybody by name Tushers, so if you took it as a personal attack, I am sorry.
Everyone has ego, so do I.
I do not question anybody's motive for posting, but I will question and respond to what you write.
I don't want to see the site go back to same old boring questions. Do you?
If you do than you are entitled to your opinion as I am mine.
I just don't understand the issue with the diffifcult, obscure questions. Why, why, why should it bother anybody to have them if all you do is play for fun and learning? What are you here for then? People who cheat need to do for ego gratification, I don't doubt that.
Do I feel frustrated at times at the obscure. Hell ya! But thats ok, I will get them another day. Really I only play here for my friends and for self improvement. If it isn't killing me than it should be making me stronger. Right?
There probably is not a single more competitive person on this site. Ask my wife, my kids, my colleagues. Both a blessing and curse. I play and I play hard. It is how I enjoy playing. May the best person win. Often times when I feel I am being too competitive I cut back on playing in competitions. A few days rest and I am back ready to go. It is easy, when you are competitive to get your ego invested in winning but it is just a game and it is just for FUN!! I keep those in mind and that in turn keeps my frustration to a minimum.
Sooo, the question remains, why the need for change? Do the questions being too hard or too obscure make it less fun? Legitimate point to a degree.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Sun 11 Jan 09 #48 
Possum
Contributor

I think it's OK to have obscure questions, as there will be a few players who may enjoy those topics, but they should not appear in brainoffs or challenges, unless the challenge is on that specific topic. (Like the extremely obnoxious challenge on Papal Bulls. Ugh!)


Knows 48008 facts
like | send message


Sun 11 Jan 09 #49 
Tushers
Contributor

sorry Pall no i dont want the same boring predictable questions and my ...... my input here is to clarify things nothing to do with topics, but for things to be clarified...
When ppl know the ground rules then all is grand but at the moment, we dont know..

i dont ahve a problem with any topics, the ones i dont like i dont play.... i love Javas juve for the obscure i dont play... i am mad Kev has gone, sag is hardly here nay more either, GJ, gone, cazza gone, teabag mostly gone but back a bit now, rod gone, by the way where is the post you are referring to about rod?

Its not a change i was asking for its clarification, guide lines, and as kev said, why are dual people continually allowed to join.. i dont let them bother me but because kev has left because of it it does now.


Knows 24444 facts
like | send message


Sun 11 Jan 09 #50 
USS Palladin
Contributor

I am sure the Count has many other things to do in life besides patrolling this site for cheaters.
Especially since it is for fun, right?
It has been discussed before that a way to limit cheating would be to make it pay to play. That brings in both a positive and negative aspect for owner and player.
In the end it was decided not to make it that way and we have what we have.
I don't like papal bulls either, in fact there is a large list in the factopedia that I don't like. But if you put one of those in there, you took the time to research it, get it into the correct form and submit it. Fair play says it should stay and the editors look at the subject and determine if it is too arcane for general randoms or can it be used. I would want the same consideration given to any subject that I submit.
I don't agree folks that people have left this site because of the questions. If they have, they have. Folks leave because of the drama. If you come to play, you want to play fair, no cheating and have fun. Cheating does deter from the fun but really not a whole lot that can be done. If I owned the site, I would have to make a hell of a lot of money off it to check and cross check things to make sure there weren't double accounts. I would also have to have a lot of free time on my hands. All for what? I am sure cheating can take place in the various competitions but those that tried have stepped forward and admitted their guilt. I am sure at sometime, at someplace along the line similiar situations will arise. No, the issue is that some people can't exhibit good sportsmanship and also make assine and insensitive comments and show a degree of intolerance which they couldn't get away with if it weren't the internet. While debate on the whole is welcomed and encouraged, how you debate does become an issue here. It is the drama, language, personal attacks in forums and in PM's that turn off people. You can't play the game, well that is one thing, you can't play the game and feel the need to take it personally, that is a different story. Many people from many parts of the world play this site. Tolerance and understanding is what is needed. Too many put the tongue in gear before the brain is engaged.
Some folks also leave because they just don't like or can't get along with somebody here. All things considered I take it they have made a mature and considered judgement about what is best for them and I wish them the best. Others leave because life pulls them in a different direction.
I know why I play and I know who I want to play against. I come for the conversation and too meet new people and learn new things. As long as the site does that for me I will stay. When it doesn't, it doesn't.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Mon 12 Jan 09 #51 
wabzy

Ah, lighten up. You have said plenty. We all know exactly how you feel. We want to know how LOTS of players feel. My brain is engaged and I think that everyone expressing an opinion here has a brain which is engaged. If their viewpoints differ from yours it is quite alright. You showdisdain for them and I can assure you that they will have it for you. We are having a discussion. No one here wants a GD lecture from anyone.


like | send message


Mon 12 Jan 09 #52 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Wow that is sort of personal isn't it?
Or did you take it personally because you have found yourself doing all the above in the past........
Or is it we should just listen to you?
Say what you want but think about what you say. Seems to be just good common sense.
I know from personal pm's from you in the past that disagreeing with you is an invite for viscious and personal diatribe.
That said I will continue to say what I want, when I want, where I want. I can at least extend the same courtesy to you to read what you write and respond in a matter that reflects my thinking and not just an emotional blurb that does nothing to add to the conversation except interject thoughtless and personal comments that really have no place in the conversation and does not advance the discussion. Try being civil Wabzy, you might find it refreshing.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Mon 12 Jan 09 #53 
wabzy

Say what you want, Pall, but you might want to think about the intensity of your words. that is my point. I am not attacking anyone now. I am weary of the silly fighting and want us only to discuss. You are highly competitive and that is great. Some people are not. All I am saying is that we know how you feel and people like to read your thoughts but maybe not such intensity for so long. i am not attacking you, personally. i think we need some calm around here, don't you? Hey. You will do what you want and go ahead. i am not in an attacking mood. Too close to garden time. Good luck in the decathlon.

I do think the Count might like to take a glance at what is going on. It is his site, afterall, and I did not mean to be rude. I am sorry for that.


like | send message


Tue 13 Jan 09 #54 
daft thistle
Contributor

..."not attacking anyone now", wabzy?...Oh, right... that was LAST month in a PM from you to me, querying if I had another identity on site. Here's hoping you'll be all revved up after your holiday to begin again. Have a wonderful break!


Knows 108206 facts
like | send message


This topic is now closed.






   About - Terms - Privacy Log In