Message Board
Banter
| Message board > Banter | 187 to 196 of 206 |
 | |
   |
| ||
| 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?!! | ||
| Show 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 | |
