Message Board
Banter
| Message board > Banter | 182 to 201 of 206 |
 | |
   |
| ||
| by jpd - Thu 18th Oct 2001, 6:49pm | ||
I Have The Power wrote: Of course more worrying is jpd's overall position, since he had no network access last year Learn to read: this analysis is only for the last month. For which I have been here more than you. | ||
| ||
| by KSS - Thu 18th Oct 2001, 5:39pm | ||
| It's just that I've watched that novice video a few times. Honest. | ||
| ||
| by I Have The Power - Thu 18th Oct 2001, 5:20pm | ||
mcp wrote: I note that Byrne and Walker have emerged as the new power users of the website, accounting for over 18% of the bytes downloaded over the last month, with a whopping total of 8000 requests between them.
Of course more worrying is jpd's overall position, since he had no network access last year | ||
| ||
| by Power user - Thu 18th Oct 2001, 3:31pm | ||
mcp wrote: I note that Byrne and Walker have emerged as the new power users of the website, accounting for over 18% of the bytes downloaded over the last month, with a whopping total of 8000 requests between them. My only excuse is that every time I open Internet Explorer, it loads up the FaT site ... | ||
| ||
| by mcp - Thu 18th Oct 2001, 2:49pm | ||
| I note that Byrne and Walker have emerged as the new power users of the website, accounting for over 18% of the bytes downloaded over the last month, with a whopping total of 8000 requests between them.
I didn't realise there was that much to look at ;-) ref: last month's stats | ||
| ||
| by KSS - Mon 15th Oct 2001, 9:37pm | ||
| This is all boring banter. JPD and I are already wasting our time on the bop - any suggestions re. the playlist?
To me please. (and if anyone suggests Whigfield........) | ||
| ||
| by gf - Mon 1st Oct 2001, 11:31am | ||
| Eh? | ||
| ||
| by Dubya - Fri 28th Sep 2001, 11:17am | ||
gf wrote: I propose that fines are increased if the post in question is from a coxswain or steersman who has not posted previously. We certainly shouldn't tolerate any crap first posts from them. Or dittons. What the hell is a grassy post? | ||
| ||
| by gf - Thu 27th Sep 2001, 12:39pm | ||
| I propose that fines are increased if the post in question is from a coxswain or steersman who has not posted previously. We certainly shouldn't tolerate any crap first posts from them. Or dittons. | ||
| ||
| by Dubya - Tue 25th Sep 2001, 12:13am | ||
an admirer wrote: i.e. Small Americans ("SAs") should note that partners of SAs will not be held financially liable for breaches of this rule. The relevant SA is fully liable for breaches of the rule by their partner(s) which result from their own negligence (e.g. scratching, breakage, failure to wash down after use, failure to load properly and in good time). This SA is fairly confused by all this. In what way have I been negligent? | ||
| ||
| by an admirer - Mon 24th Sep 2001, 9:17pm | ||
mcp wrote: My original plan had been that the captains would be liable for etc... i.e. Small Americans ("SAs") should note that partners of SAs will not be held financially liable for breaches of this rule. The relevant SA is fully liable for breaches of the rule by their partner(s) which result from their own negligence (e.g. scratching, breakage, failure to wash down after use, failure to load properly and in good time). | ||
| ||
| by Sarah - Mon 24th Sep 2001, 6:10pm | ||
mcp wrote: Now what were you thinking of? Why that of course.
And I'm not sure I like the whole spouses thing either. | ||
| ||
| by mcp - Mon 24th Sep 2001, 6:08pm | ||
| Performance wrt posting crap messages, clearly, since that is the subject under discussion. Now what were you thinking of? | ||
| ||
| by Sarah - Mon 24th Sep 2001, 5:58pm | ||
Sarah wrote: And what kind of 'preformance' are we talking here?!! Ok, perhaps I should learn to spell. | ||
| ||
| by Sarah - Mon 24th Sep 2001, 5:57pm | ||
| And what kind of 'preformance' are we talking here?!! | ||
| ||
| by mcp - Mon 24th Sep 2001, 5:35pm | ||
| My original plan had been that the captains would be liable for the performance (or lack thereof) of their spouses... | ||
| ||
| by Sarah - Mon 24th Sep 2001, 4:54pm | ||
| Does this mean the captain is never going to pay any fines? Personally, I think he should be fined for being at work and spending the afternoon e-mailing instead ;-) | ||
| ||
| by Dubya - Mon 24th Sep 2001, 4:40pm | ||
the webmaster wrote: Crap posts are banned. Any breach of this rule will be subject to a fine - 5 pounds for the first offence, to be doubled for each repeat offence. I should remind you that all fines can be waived at the discretion of the Captain. unless we rewrite the rules. Which we are going to do before they come into effect. | ||
| ||
| by the webmaster - Mon 24th Sep 2001, 2:59pm | ||
| Crap posts are banned. Any breach of this rule will be subject to a fine - 5 pounds for the first offence, to be doubled for each repeat offence. | ||
| ||
| by Sarah - Sat 22nd Sep 2001, 9:54pm | ||
| and you in turn were right, that was a crap post. Darling. | ||
| Show 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 | |
