The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Why is it that someone who's only been here 36 days, posts in the same forum aallll the time, and of which posts are usually nonsensical pieces of, well, crap, gets more votes than people who have built themselves up to be great posters, and an asset to the forums in general?
I'm talking about @ng3l. No disrespect at all to the lass, no no no.
But what I'm saying is, is that it shows that people just really vote for anybody rather than great attributes to this place.
Cookie Monster. He's been here for what, 900 odd days? Posts well all the time. A lot of people like him.
1 vote.
Tilta. 700 odd days. Very good poster indeed. 1 vote.
Rickoss, Unbeliever, MWA, Blank, Totoro, Dark Mark, Aliboy - the list goes on.
Granted, one or two of them don't post as much as they used to.
But the others - they post forum wide.
@ng3l posts the same old limited crap in the Simpleto..., er, General Chat forum.
And it's a shame, because the good posters are sidelined.
Meh, I'm getting too worked up about this for no reason.
I'm talking about @ng3l. No disrespect at all to the lass, no no no.
But what I'm saying is, is that it shows that people just really vote for anybody rather than great attributes to this place.
Cookie Monster. He's been here for what, 900 odd days? Posts well all the time. A lot of people like him.
1 vote.
Tilta. 700 odd days. Very good poster indeed. 1 vote.
Rickoss, Unbeliever, MWA, Blank, Totoro, Dark Mark, Aliboy - the list goes on.
Granted, one or two of them don't post as much as they used to.
But the others - they post forum wide.
@ng3l posts the same old limited crap in the Simpleto..., er, General Chat forum.
And it's a shame, because the good posters are sidelined.
Meh, I'm getting too worked up about this for no reason.
Page:
Azul wrote:
>
> It wasn't a pathetic post.
> It was a post highlighting the psychological issues of these forums.
> It was a post that had evidence, and an explanation of my thoughts on
> the matter.
God you seriously need to get a life, PSYCHOLOGICAL issues of the forums.
>
> It wasn't a pathetic post.
> It was a post highlighting the psychological issues of these forums.
> It was a post that had evidence, and an explanation of my thoughts on
> the matter.
God you seriously need to get a life, PSYCHOLOGICAL issues of the forums.
Meh, might as well join in on a session before I head off to bed.
I could do with the relief.
My shotgun's a lil' dusty, but I'll quickly clean it down.
I could do with the relief.
My shotgun's a lil' dusty, but I'll quickly clean it down.
Bora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> Alphabetically, starting from the bottom.
>
> suits me
Same here.
> Alphabetically, starting from the bottom.
>
> suits me
Same here.
@ng3l wrote:
> it was a pathetic post in the first place.
I'm determined now.
Seriously.
***
It wasn't a pathetic post.
It was a post highlighting the psychological issues of these forums.
It was a post that had evidence, and an explanation of my thoughts on the matter.
I can't put it any simpler.
No offence was caused, yet through your misunderstanding of the post/topic in question, you've brought a non-existential offensive upon yourself.
And there's nothing I can do about that.
> it was a pathetic post in the first place.
I'm determined now.
Seriously.
***
It wasn't a pathetic post.
It was a post highlighting the psychological issues of these forums.
It was a post that had evidence, and an explanation of my thoughts on the matter.
I can't put it any simpler.
No offence was caused, yet through your misunderstanding of the post/topic in question, you've brought a non-existential offensive upon yourself.
And there's nothing I can do about that.
Blank wrote:
> Bora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> now, should we do this by alphabetical order or completely randomly?
>
> Alphabetically, starting from the bottom.
suits me
> Bora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> now, should we do this by alphabetical order or completely randomly?
>
> Alphabetically, starting from the bottom.
suits me
Bora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> now, should we do this by alphabetical order or completely randomly?
Alphabetically, starting from the bottom.
> now, should we do this by alphabetical order or completely randomly?
Alphabetically, starting from the bottom.
@ng3l wrote:
indeed
>
> *high five*
>
> *cocking sound*
>
> now, should we do this by alphabetical order or completely randomly?
Start at "s", then work around to "q".
indeed
>
> *high five*
>
> *cocking sound*
>
> now, should we do this by alphabetical order or completely randomly?
Start at "s", then work around to "q".
Bora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Anyone have the urge to go on a shotgun rampage or something ?
>
> indeed
>
> *high five*
>
> *cocking sound*
>
> now, should we do this by alphabetical order or completely randomly?
You and me will go to General Chat, the rest of you fire at will...
> Belldandy wrote:
> Anyone have the urge to go on a shotgun rampage or something ?
>
> indeed
>
> *high five*
>
> *cocking sound*
>
> now, should we do this by alphabetical order or completely randomly?
You and me will go to General Chat, the rest of you fire at will...
Belldandy wrote:
> Anyone have the urge to go on a shotgun rampage or something ?
indeed
*high five*
*cocking sound*
now, should we do this by alphabetical order or completely randomly?
> Anyone have the urge to go on a shotgun rampage or something ?
indeed
*high five*
*cocking sound*
now, should we do this by alphabetical order or completely randomly?
Fair enough azul you are not worth the bother. you had your say i had mine. it was a pathetic post in the first place. Whats all the fuss about. Its a forum, it should not matter how long someone has been here how many posts people have done at the end of the day.
Page: