What I've noticed about the WC...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seedler

Cheesyboy you have like 14000 posts, so stfu please, you're a spammer. Or in your words, Cheese trys to clutter up the Lounge with mindless shit. Fact.

---

Cheese has been a member for 3 years whereas you have been here for about 8 months therefore he's bound to have a shitload more posts compared to you :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seedler

Cheesyboy you have like 14000 posts, so stfu please, you're a spammer. Or in your words, Cheese trys to clutter up the Lounge with mindless shit. Fact.

---

Cheese has been a member for 3 years whereas you have been here for about 8 months therefore he's bound to have a shitload more posts compared to you :dry:

---

Good point, I have actually made an average of 100 posts a week. I remember each and every one as if I had just posted them. Gems, fucking sparkly gems of goodness, one and all.

Almost 14posts/day for Cheese:no2:

And that's with quality.

He works 2 fulltime shifts posting on FST everyday.

He's my new idol.:wub:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seedler

Almost 14posts/day for Cheese:no2:

And that's with quality.

He works 2 fulltime shifts posting on FST everyday.

He's my new idol.:wub:

---

It's you that attaches importance to the post count, not me. That's the only way I can explain your ceaseless spamming and constant mention of it if someone criticizes your "posts". You seem to believe by posting lots your tiny cawk will start growing. Bad news pin-dick, it don't work like that.

I've always felt the arguments;

a, I've been here longer than you.

ii, I've got more posts than you.

3, I'm older / younger than you.

to be quite pathetic. Someone's join date is irrelevant. The number of their posts (high or low) is irrelevant. All that matters is the quality. That's not to say I must agree with what someone is posting. Au contraire, I have seen some excellent posts which I totally disagreed with. They were not however idiotic.

That said there is no excuse for replying to something without taking the effort to read it first. That's at best a waste of time and at worst downright rude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

I've always felt the arguments;

a, I've been here longer than you.

ii, I've got more posts than you.

3, I'm older / younger than you.

to be quite pathetic. Someone's join date is irrelevant. The number of their posts (high or low) is irrelevant. All that matters is the quality. That's not to say I must agree with what someone is posting. Au contraire, I have seen some excellent posts which I totally disagreed with. They were not however idiotic.

That said there is no excuse for replying to something without taking the effort to read it first. That's at best a waste of time and at worst downright rude.

---

Agree, i've been here longer than you = valid arguement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proper Bo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

I've always felt the arguments;

a, I've been here longer than you.

ii, I've got more posts than you.

3, I'm older / younger than you.

to be quite pathetic. Someone's join date is irrelevant. The number of their posts (high or low) is irrelevant. All that matters is the quality. That's not to say I must agree with what someone is posting. Au contraire, I have seen some excellent posts which I totally disagreed with. They were not however idiotic.

That said there is no excuse for replying to something without taking the effort to read it first. That's at best a waste of time and at worst downright rude.

---

Agree, i've been here longer than you = valid arguement.

---

Yup it's a valid argument, it's also pathetic.

fine, ignore my deliberate non-reading of your post.:snooty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proper Bo

fine, ignore my deliberate non-reading of your post.:snooty:

---

Never explain them mate, it's almost as bad as dabbling.

how about explaining dabbling?