|
04 Aug 00 - 02:36 AM (#271322) Subject: Killing the Thread II From: GUEST,Stephen Spielberg I was thinking of a sequel. It was getting too long to load, and the Mudcat is slow enough Any takers, anyone? |
|
04 Aug 00 - 03:00 AM (#271323) Subject: RE: BS: Killing the Thread II From: Joe Offer Click here if you dare to look at the previous thread, which had 282 messages when I made this link. That must be some sort of record. I think I last looked at it when it had 20 messages. I refuse to look at it now. What are you guys, crazy? -Joe Offer- |
|
04 Aug 00 - 09:58 AM (#271335) Subject: RE: BS: Killing the Thread II From: catspaw49 Any killing of the thread as discussed must be the other thread.....This is a separate thread and it has a life of its own. The first thread is ridiculous of course and a complete waste of bandwidth past July 2. My honest suggestion would be for Joe or Pene or Max to kill the damn thing DEAD....make it impossible to post to and then delete everything after July 2 with a note that it was a record, thanks to all, blah, blah....and now let's save a little space and flush everything past 7/2/00.....I think others on the thread would agree. Spaw |
|
04 Aug 00 - 11:38 AM (#271341) Subject: RE: BS: Killing the Thread II From: wysiwyg Let's just say anyone who DISAGREES with Spaw's suggestion might say so, here, and assume that we don't have to post agreement with Spaw. Otherwise this would become a shall-we-kill-it endless thread, plus a conspiracy to commit posticide, and that's gotta be worse than a clique. ~S~ |
|
04 Aug 00 - 11:39 AM (#271342) Subject: RE: BS: Killing the Thread II From: wysiwyg Let's just say anyone who DISAGREES with Spaw's suggestion might say so, here, and assume that we don't have to post agreement with Spaw. Otherwise this would become a shall-we-kill-it endless thread, plus a conspiracy to commit posticide, and that's gotta be worse than a clique. ~S~ |
|
04 Aug 00 - 11:43 AM (#271344) Subject: RE: BS: Killing the Thread II From: A Wandering Minstrel I suspect "the thread they could not kill" may be contributing majorly to the difficulties in getting on to Mudcat today |
|
04 Aug 00 - 12:49 PM (#271391) Subject: RE: BS: Killing the Thread II From: Homeless Ummm... Spaw? I don't see anything on that thread prior to July 18 - the date that Allan created it. So if everything past 7/2/00 is deleted there won't be anything left. Are you suggesting the entire thread should be deleted? Or do you just a problem with dates? (take that any way you care to {evil smirk}) |
|
04 Aug 00 - 12:55 PM (#271394) Subject: RE: BS: Killing the Thread II From: catspaw49 I used to have a problem with dates. In my single days, extended phase, I would spend countless hours and large sums of money to try and accomplish the objective of getting the girl in the sack. When I realized I wasn't looking for love, just some companionship and sex, I began to employ the direct approach which saved a lot of time and money and the results were frankly better. Yeah...I didn't look up the thread when I posted that, but somwhere about 60 posts it went FAR afield and into the realm of insanity. Spaw |
|
04 Aug 00 - 01:23 PM (#271417) Subject: RE: BS: Killing the Thread II From: Jeri Here's an idea, Joe - how about disposable threads. I mean, we've got the garbage dump threads, and someone has to take out the garbage every now and then. Unless there are things on those threads people want others to read months or years from now? I mean, the stuff is now virtually inscribed in stone for all the world to see. Anthropologists might study it someday. It might help MC run a teeny bit faster to have some "short shelf life" threads. |
|
04 Aug 00 - 05:19 PM (#271556) Subject: RE: BS: Killing the Thread II From: Bill D If there was another choice in the 'new thread' box..(like where the BS is)..so that it could be designated 'temp'..and terminated after 'x' long..(if the originator could archive any thread he or she started WITH the temp designation...so it could be read, but not extended...) We can archive our PMs now... just an idea... (and, I think, you can still get the forum with a 'no BS' option) http://www.mudcat.org/threadsnot.cfm?Title=BS |
|
04 Aug 00 - 07:03 PM (#271624) Subject: RE: BS: Killing the Thread II From: Liz the Squeak Oh good grief, not again! |
|
04 Aug 00 - 08:40 PM (#271664) Subject: RE: BS: Killing the Thread II From: Sorcha I thought perhaps "WE" were going for a record number of posts in a thread.......I didn't click after 90 or so. Delete it, Joe, (and this one as well--we won't miss it) and save the bandwidth. We have enough problems as it is. Sorry for the additonal length. I will go back to my wordpad and abc's now..... |