I assume this applies to DL36 also, who frequently bumps about 5 - 10 threads a night ... usually between 2-5 am ( EST ) and only adds 1 sentence posts ( this usually occurs when Slim or I have some threads up top )
I can produce these bumps if you like
So shall we start the boxing with you and other cohorts for the same behavior?
How about keep your nose out of things which are going to get you in trouble, especially stuff you are at fault for yourself.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 5_for_Fighting:
I assume this applies to DL36 also, who frequently bumps about 5 - 10 threads a night ... usually between 2-5 am ( EST ) and only adds 1 sentence posts ( this usually occurs when Slim or I have some threads up top )
I can produce these bumps if you like
So shall we start the boxing with you and other cohorts for the same behavior?
How about keep your nose out of things which are going to get you in trouble, especially stuff you are at fault for yourself.
Another 6.5 Billion tax payers have to pay ..........
The Social Security Administration made $6.5 billion in overpayments to people not entitled to receive them in 2009, including $4 billion under a supplemental income program for the very poor, a government investigator said Tuesday.
Throughout the federal government, improper payments totaled $125 billion last year, up from $110 billion in 2009, O'Carroll said. In 2009, only two other agencies — the Departments of Health and Human Services, and Labor — had more improper payments than Social Security, he said. CBS
Gee,I wonder what could go wrong with Obamacare ?
0
Another 6.5 Billion tax payers have to pay ..........
The Social Security Administration made $6.5 billion in overpayments to people not entitled to receive them in 2009, including $4 billion under a supplemental income program for the very poor, a government investigator said Tuesday.
Throughout the federal government, improper payments totaled $125 billion last year, up from $110 billion in 2009, O'Carroll said. In 2009, only two other agencies — the Departments of Health and Human Services, and Labor — had more improper payments than Social Security, he said. CBS
So shall we start the boxing with you and other cohorts for the same behavior? How about keep your nose out of things which are going to get you in trouble, especially stuff you are at fault for yourself
Wall, I would say that would be approprate now that we know this new rule.
I believe it is the "Kroger rule" that is currently being written into the manifesto.
Now if course, intent should be considered. If we see the same offender do this frequently, adding just obtuse one liners, and most of them ||off_topic.gif' border=0> comments not dealing with the thread title...then yes indeed.
If they are comments that are on topic, and / or dealing with a question asked of said poster, than I would say NO!
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
So shall we start the boxing with you and other cohorts for the same behavior? How about keep your nose out of things which are going to get you in trouble, especially stuff you are at fault for yourself
Wall, I would say that would be approprate now that we know this new rule.
I believe it is the "Kroger rule" that is currently being written into the manifesto.
Now if course, intent should be considered. If we see the same offender do this frequently, adding just obtuse one liners, and most of them ||off_topic.gif' border=0> comments not dealing with the thread title...then yes indeed.
If they are comments that are on topic, and / or dealing with a question asked of said poster, than I would say NO!
So shall we start the boxing with you and other cohorts for the same behavior? How about keep your nose out of things which are going to get you in trouble, especially stuff you are at fault for yourself
Wall, I would say that would be approprate now that we know this new rule.
I believe it is the "Kroger rule" that is currently being written into the manifesto.
Now if course, intent should be considered. If we see the same offender do this frequently, adding just obtuse one liners, and most of them ||off_topic.gif' border=0> comments not dealing with the thread title...then yes indeed.
If they are comments that are on topic, and / or dealing with a question asked of said poster, than I would say NO!
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
So shall we start the boxing with you and other cohorts for the same behavior? How about keep your nose out of things which are going to get you in trouble, especially stuff you are at fault for yourself
Wall, I would say that would be approprate now that we know this new rule.
I believe it is the "Kroger rule" that is currently being written into the manifesto.
Now if course, intent should be considered. If we see the same offender do this frequently, adding just obtuse one liners, and most of them ||off_topic.gif' border=0> comments not dealing with the thread title...then yes indeed.
If they are comments that are on topic, and / or dealing with a question asked of said poster, than I would say NO!
Wall, I would say that would be approprate now that we know this new rule.
I believe it is the "Kroger rule" that is currently being written into the manifesto.
Now if course, intent should be considered. If we see the same offender do this frequently, adding just obtuse one liners, and most of them ||off_topic.gif' border=0> comments not dealing with the thread title...then yes indeed.
If they are comments that are on topic, and / or dealing with a question asked of said poster, than I would say NO!
The kroger rule? I am shocked that you didnt claim it as your rule, since you did it first and often.
Of course it is none of your business, especially since you have done this very thing in the past..crowding the forum with garbage and bumps.
And, we have in the past requested members to not make repeated threads with nothing more than emoticons or links etc and we have boxed/banned members for doing this very thing.
Thanks for the obvious serious concern, how about you focus on more important things like talking in the third person and stirring the pot.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 5_for_Fighting:
Wall, I would say that would be approprate now that we know this new rule.
I believe it is the "Kroger rule" that is currently being written into the manifesto.
Now if course, intent should be considered. If we see the same offender do this frequently, adding just obtuse one liners, and most of them ||off_topic.gif' border=0> comments not dealing with the thread title...then yes indeed.
If they are comments that are on topic, and / or dealing with a question asked of said poster, than I would say NO!
The kroger rule? I am shocked that you didnt claim it as your rule, since you did it first and often.
Of course it is none of your business, especially since you have done this very thing in the past..crowding the forum with garbage and bumps.
And, we have in the past requested members to not make repeated threads with nothing more than emoticons or links etc and we have boxed/banned members for doing this very thing.
Thanks for the obvious serious concern, how about you focus on more important things like talking in the third person and stirring the pot.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
