| # | Author | Message |
101
| wendebird
Mon 6/10/2002 6:11p | Dalmatians!!!!! |
102
| GGGF
Tue 6/11/2002 8:52a | 24 hours, so:
"A hundred bad guys with swords..." |
103
| Wendybird
Tue 6/11/2002 9:40a | Wait..wait...wait! Give basil fan a chance to say whether wndebird is correct or not. You can't just skip over people because 24 hours has passed. |
104
| Wendybird
Tue 6/11/2002 9:41a | oops! **wendebird** |
105
| GGGF
Tue 6/11/2002 9:47a | Why can't I? 24 hours is the rule. Waiting longer for that is pointless. I don't see that I did a single thing impolite or wong. |
106
| Wendybird
Tue 6/11/2002 9:56a | I guess it just seemed rude to me because we all know basil fan doesn't get on here every 24 hours. Why can't we wait a little longer to give her a chance to verify the question she asked? There's no hurry.
It doesn't seem fair to me when someone gets a chance to ask a question and just gets skipped over b/c someone else didn't want to wait. If 24 hours is the rule, then fine, but that hasn't been the way that most others have done it.
To me, it is fun to get a chance to ask and answer questions, whether or not a new one is asked every 24 hours. Maybe that's just me, though. |
107
| GGGF
Tue 6/11/2002 10:10a | > I guess it just seemed rude to me
> because we all know basil fan doesn't > get on here every 24 hours.
Well, we all don't "know" that. That's new to me. If that is the case, then something should have been said about it, is all.
> Why can't we wait a little longer to
> give her a chance to verify the
> question she asked?
Because other people have questions they want to ask and we all just can't wait forever for people to respond.
> There's no hurry.
I hardly consider a full 24 hours a hurry. Any slower, and these topics will grind to a halt.
> It doesn't seem fair to me when
> someone gets a chance to ask a
> question and just gets skipped over
> b/c someone else didn't want to wait.
And it seems more fair to you that we all have to wait forever for someone to respond because they can't be bothered to answer promptly? The 24 rule has been in effect for a while, it's worked so far, and I don't appreciate a newbie attacking me for following the standards that had been set beforehand.
> If 24 hours is the rule, then fine,
> but that hasn't been the way that most > others have done it.
How would you know?
> To me, it is fun to get a chance to
> ask and answer questions, whether or
> not a new one is asked every 24 hours. > Maybe that's just me, though.
It is just you. How much fun will you think it is, when you never get to ask or get the answer to a question because one person takes a long time to respond?
I'm sorry, you make still find it fun to only get to so this once a week or month, but I find that very dull and unreasonable.
Again, I don't appreciate being attacked by someone simply because I followed the rules. If you don't like it, fine, but to blame me for it is much more rude than anything I could have done. |
108
| GGGF
Tue 6/11/2002 10:15a | I'm sorry, but you may find it fun to wait weeks or months for the game to get moving again, but I don't. |
109
| wendebird
Tue 6/11/2002 1:00p | GGGF, this is getting a little irritating. I guessed that song on June 10th at 6 PM. It's hardly waiting a week or a month. You need to give Basil fan a chance to respond. Besides I'm 99% sure I have the right song & it would be my turn. Please be considerate of the other people on this board who can't be online more than once a day. |
110
| wendebird
Tue 6/11/2002 1:27p | >and I don't appreciate a newbie attacking me for following the standards that had been set beforehand.<
Wendybird is by far, not a newbie.
Watch out for us terrible Wend(ey)birds.
|
