Re: Paul Phillips was right
 

KneeCo,

Please continue reading astro's post to see his very good explanation re: posting of random email joke spams to OOT.

Re: Paul Phillips was right
 

nice work Astro, dude sucked from his inception anyways.

Re: Paul Phillips was right
 

[ QUOTE ]
KneeCo,

Please continue reading astro's post to see his very good explanation re: posting of random email joke spams to OOT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, it seems perfectly justified to want to discourage people from posting forwards. Just so long as we don't start locking threads just because some people think they suck, because then there wont be any threads life and I'll have to do something with my life. In other words, one would hope that the thread would have been locked for being a copy/pasted forward even if it was absolutely hilarious and/or brilliant (which would be a first for a forward, but anyway).

Re: Paul Phillips was right
 

"A thread was locked for no other reason than it didn't amuse a mod?"

No one here is amused by stupid forwarded email crap

Re: Paul Phillips was right
 

[ QUOTE ]
"A thread was locked for no other reason than it didn't amuse a mod?"

No one here is amused by stupid forwarded email crap

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn, and I was going to post "10 reasons why cats are really not the pets, but the 'owner' is."

craig

Re: Paul Phillips was right
 

craig,

pls post that ASAP, it sounds very ROFL

Re: Paul Phillips was right
 

I'd just like to say that if astro deleted posts based on his own taste, that would be a godod thing.

Re: Paul Phillips was right
 

[ QUOTE ]
craig,

pls post that ASAP, it sounds very ROFL

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to get me banned? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] If so, I can just do it myself. It's like suicide when a mod bans himself. In fact, I think Camus, in his essay on suicide, mentions it is rational for a mod to want to ban himself sometimes.

craig

Re: Paul Phillips was right
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

this resulted in a 'why did the mods lock the child of the 60s thread?' with no text in the body of the post by tek, which i deleted and contacted him via pm to say it was locked because it sucked.

[/ QUOTE ]

A thread was locked for no other reason than it didn't amuse a mod?

I don't mean to start a whole thing here, but seriously?

Note that I haven't seen the thread in question, though the fact that it may or may not have sucked is irrelevant to the discussion IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. There was no reason to lock the first thread. That was truly dumb.

Astro, you're a smart guy, but if you're just going to lock things pretty much on random whims, that's pointless.

Re: Paul Phillips was right
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
craig,

pls post that ASAP, it sounds very ROFL

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you trying to get me banned? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] If so, I can just do it myself. It's like suicide when a mod bans himself. In fact, I think Camus, in his essay on suicide, mentions it is rational for a mod to want to ban himself sometimes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking of which, are you going to kill yourself any time soon? I have a hundo that says you'll do it tonight.

Encouragingly yours,
Mason Hellmuth