|
Post by mrplow on Sept 26, 2016 12:42:18 GMT
JDL arguably posts the most bollocks on this forum currently.
|
|
|
Post by ronaldostone on Sept 26, 2016 14:17:13 GMT
JDL arguably posts the most bollocks on this forum currently. Long live the King of Bollocks "Frenchstone"
|
|
|
Post by daveu on Sept 26, 2016 15:05:14 GMT
It should be can't think of less than two shouldn't it? Should that be "fewer than two"? Apparently in our world of ever declining standards fewer and less are completely interchangeable, so people who can't be bothered are free to mangle the language any way they choose. Fewer in place of less makes even fewer sense than the other way round
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Sept 26, 2016 15:42:15 GMT
OMG what is that all about ? Never mind, my vote goes to daveu !
|
|
|
Post by senna34165 on Sept 26, 2016 15:44:59 GMT
JDL arguably posts the most bollocks on this forum currently. No arguement about it 😀
|
|
|
Post by hdstone on Sept 26, 2016 18:06:21 GMT
Saldly Senna, your vote doesn't count on fair play grounds, seen as you're either A, B or C
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Sept 26, 2016 21:22:44 GMT
Oldest tit, if you don't mind.
No bloody respect these days...
|
|
|
Post by jt on Sept 27, 2016 10:06:03 GMT
Easiest way to figure it is the number of posts. The more posts the more bollocks spouted.
|
|
|
Post by frankinstone on Sept 27, 2016 12:14:30 GMT
so if you are Omnipotent,you got bigger bollocks?...makes sense
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Sept 27, 2016 12:42:47 GMT
Easiest way to figure it is the number of posts. The more posts the more bollocks spouted. I'll go for that - I'm 4th, so that makes Islandstone the third tit!! And Senna is truly pathetic - barely 1,000 posts...
|
|
|
Post by daveu on Sept 27, 2016 14:49:03 GMT
Easiest way to figure it is the number of posts. The more posts the more bollocks spouted. I may have been posting bollocks for longer but there are more recent posters who more than match me when taken as a percentage of their overall posts
|
|
|
Post by nws on Sept 29, 2016 12:40:14 GMT
It should be can't think of less than two shouldn't it? Should that be "fewer than two"? Indeed so
|
|
|
Post by nws on Sept 29, 2016 12:46:58 GMT
Easiest way to figure it is the number of posts. The more posts the more bollocks spouted. I may have been posting bollocks for longer but there are more recent posters who more than match me when taken as a percentage of their overall posts Who knows who has posted the most. Myself and Mr U do not use pseudonyms whereas some of the animals on this board do. Apart from that I don't care if my posts appear as bollocks to the uneducated masses of this board. They wouldn't know sophisticated reasoning if it slapped them on the nose. In fact, the less my posts are understood, the better for me.
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Sept 29, 2016 16:17:01 GMT
Interesting piece of 'logic' - that those who post the most are somehow doing something wrong.
Imagine this board without the regular frequent posters...
Log in and.... oh nothing's being posted
Log in again and... still nothing's been posted
Log in again and... still nothing...
Log in again and... Oh hang on, what was that?!
... oh, just some tumbleweed blowing across the dusty, arid, expanse of the message board...
|
|
|
Post by jt on Sept 29, 2016 16:39:09 GMT
Sounds infinitely better than the constant shit that threads seem to end up in. It's a massive contest to see who has the smallest cock and best wrist action through constant one handed keyboard use.
|
|