Which "Who Killed What List" should stay stickied - Page 2

LFG · 05-26-2007, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ishbu

Secondly, I thought you offered to sticky a post if we made a new one LFG, so if that is the case I would say both lists should stay, although that is not the way I voted.

Like most people on this board, I think I'm just really confused about what everyone wants to happen, and even what individual people are asking me to do.

So I wanted to get some community feedback on this, which I do because I'm sometimes surprised at how off base my ideas are from what most other people want.

I did make the offer, however, and really have no problem leaving both posts up unless someone has a strenuous objection to that, and if so, anyone who does should speak now or forever hold your peace.

I'm seriously not trying to throw additional gasoline on this, was just trying to help come to a final resolution.

KFizzle · 05-26-2007, 01:35 PM

Like i said LFG what he's really saying there is "Waah Waah Waah" ... he only wants to create and cause issues like this, i'm sure of it. Theres no other reason everything with him on every thread (yes i'm generalizing) seems to turn into a pointless runaround arguement with him double talking and backtracking on his own posts.

Ishbu · 05-26-2007, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KFizzle

Like i said LFG what he's really saying there is "Waah Waah Waah" ... he only wants to create and cause issues like this, i'm sure of it. Theres no other reason everything with him on every thread (yes i'm generalizing) seems to turn into a pointless runaround arguement with him double talking and backtracking on his own posts.

Your wrong period. The one person who knows what I want to do is me and I am flat out telling your wrong. Hell, even LFG can clearly see that that is not how I would have posted if I was trying to attack him and cause a bigger problem.

Anyone with a brain knows I would have said something like, "LFG, you said that you would sticky and leave up a second list if we made one. So now are you going back on your word? I knew you had no spine, etc etc."

That is what would have been said if I was trying to make this into a bigger issue. That is not what I said at all because I dont think thats whats happening here at all. Kajar, seriously, next time think before you talk because even LFG will agree that your just being butthurt now.

TANGARTH · 05-28-2007, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ishbu

yer wrong your wrong ye r wrong yer wrong your wrong ye r wrong yer wrong your wrong ye r wrong yer wrong your wrong ye r wrong yer wrong your wrong ye r wrong yer wrong your wrong ye r wrong yer wrong your wrong ye r wrong yer wrong your wrong ye r wrong yer wrong your wrong ye r wrong yer wrong your wrong ye r wrong yer wrong your wrong ye r wrong yer wrong your wrong ye r wrong yer wrong your wrong ye r wrong yer wrong your wrong ye r wrong

hey ishbu, approx 45% voted for del's list, that's a large majority right!?!!!!

Widem · 05-29-2007, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TANGARTH

hey ishbu, approx 45% voted for del's list, that's a large majority right!?!!!!

actually tangarth thats a large minority, but cant blame you cuz your from canada.

and the problem with the vote in and of itself is...as poeple who understand the difference between AuB and AnB is that 24people do not like dels list whereas 23 do like it.

By the way thats A union B and A intersecting B for people who dont understand statistics.

KFizzle · 05-29-2007, 02:33 PM

But Bill Clinton was still elected president. And before you say that has nothing to do with anything, i will note that it was Ishbu who brought in the american political system with his comparison to votes in the senate. As for uh 'statistics' maybe i don't know em (so that AuB and AnB even though i woulda thought AiB but whatever, was actually helpful ... sorta) but i know that when Clinton won with 43% of the american people voting for him (aprox 19% for Perot, aprox 38% for Bush Sr).

So the moral of this story, just because it wasnt over 50% doesnt mean it wasnt almost 50% higher than vote getter number 2 ... and as we all know from what has been said elsewhere on the topic, Second Place is the First Loser (well not hat way, that was Papoose). Its all about the Nacirema dream.

And your right, Tangarth is from Canada...maybe i should take advantage of him and take a loan then pay him back in plat with the canadian exchange rate ... hmmmn.

TANGARTH · 05-29-2007, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Widem

actually tangarth thats a large minority, but cant blame you cuz your from canada.

and the problem with the vote in and of itself is...as poeple who understand the difference between AuB and AnB is that 24people do not like dels list whereas 23 do like it.

By the way thats A union B and A intersecting B for people who dont understand statistics.

and 35 people who don't like snarks list and 14 that do like it.

but would you agree 40% in a two option poll is not the majority?

Widem · 05-29-2007, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KFizzle

But Bill Clinton was still elected president. And before you say that has nothing to do with anything, i will note that it was Ishbu who brought in the american political system with his comparison to votes in the senate. As for uh 'statistics' maybe i don't know em (so that AuB and AnB even though i woulda thought AiB but whatever, was actually helpful ... sorta) but i know that when Clinton won with 43% of the american people voting for him (aprox 19% for Perot, aprox 38% for Bush Sr).

So the moral of this story, just because it wasnt over 50% doesnt mean it wasnt almost 50% higher than vote getter number 2 ... and as we all know from what has been said elsewhere on the topic, Second Place is the First Loser (well not hat way, that was Papoose). Its all about the Nacirema dream.

And your right, Tangarth is from Canada...maybe i should take advantage of him and take a loan then pay him back in plat with the canadian exchange rate ... hmmmn.

thats because a presidential election is not decided by the people, but the electoral college. EQ2 does not have an electoral college.

TANGARTH · 05-29-2007, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Widem

thats because a presidential election is not decided by the people, but the electoral college. EQ2 does not have an electoral college.

with that terrible system how can you make fun of Canadians...

(and that's with the less fat chicks aside)

KFizzle · 05-29-2007, 02:41 PM

And this site isnt 'decided by the people' its decided by the electoral college of LFG.