| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 16:05:29
Hi Benj
This version
seems to be the same as
This version
It's really caught me out. I've had a review approved for the 2nd and a similar one pending for the first. Actually, when I wrote the latter I thought -- hmm, I'm sure I submitted this already, then put it down to senility   .
So now I'm reluctant to delete either one in case the other gets binned for being a dupe. Is there any way you can say which version you're keeping and migrate all the reviews into one? Then I'll happily delete my pending offender 
Cheers and TIA!
|
| 10 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 11/26/2006 : 01:00:40
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
My God! Was it me? Did I really sound nasty, or sniping, or offended in the slightest? If so, then please accept my abject apologies: that was so off my intention that I'm still reeling from the thought that I might have hurt anyone's feelings. Wow. Sorrysorrysorrysorrysorry, though I must admit I still don't know what I wrote which offended.
I was simply suggesting a way to make benj's job as arbiter easier, by telescoping back the number of threads which call for his attention. I was only thinking about benj's time, not trying to be "nasty" to any thread originators...
I repeat: apologies to anyone whom I offended. It was certainly inadvertent, believe you me.
No, you're okay, Randall. 
|
| randall |
Posted - 11/25/2006 : 22:00:48
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
I'd try to keep the number of different threads to a minimum, Ghost and Baffy. That way benj can stay focused more easily...
Yes, there has been a proliferation of threads recently. Posting in the right threads also keeps them live. For example, there was a very long-standing Accolades thread, but then people started posting whole threads whenever they had created a new accolade, or someone had achieved one, etc. etc., so that it has been lost.
Just to explain my strategy for publically congratulating my acc achievers - it was a shameless ploy to entice others to visit my accolades. Apparently it's offended some people, so I'll stop doing it.
All this back-biting and sniping is quite hurtful, and might be avoided if the unwritten rules were a bit more accesible to those of us who haven't been here quite as long as others. I do try to be a good and helpful fwfr-er. If I've offended you - or others - in any way, it's totally unintentional and please forgive me.
May I please request if you have anything else subliminally nasty to say about me, can you please have the courtesy to PM me instead of this silly sniping.
My God! Was it me? Did I really sound nasty, or sniping, or offended in the slightest? If so, then please accept my abject apologies: that was so off my intention that I'm still reeling from the thought that I might have hurt anyone's feelings. Wow. Sorrysorrysorrysorrysorry, though I must admit I still don't know what I wrote which offended.
I was simply suggesting a way to make benj's job as arbiter easier, by telescoping back the number of threads which call for his attention. I was only thinking about benj's time, not trying to be "nasty" to any thread originators...
I repeat: apologies to anyone whom I offended. It was certainly inadvertent, believe you me. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 11/23/2006 : 13:49:47
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Thanks for that, Sal. Your points are well made. Pals again?! 
|
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 11/23/2006 : 13:28:38
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Oh dear, I'm certainly not offended and I didn't mean to offend you, which I clearly did. Sorry.  For one thing, I have no problem with people being congratulated here for achieving accolades - I have done so myself in the past.
With regards to having fewer threads, it's no kind of rule - just my preference based on what seems sensible to me, and I only meant to give my reasons for thinking that. The converse is also true, though - people sometimes post in a relatively irrelevant thread because there is no more apt one (or because they do not look for it). In those cases, my opinion is that they should start a new thread (or look for the one there already is).
Thanks for that, Sal. Your points are well made. Pals again?!
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 11/23/2006 : 13:07:34
Oh dear, I'm certainly not offended and I didn't mean to offend you, which I clearly did. Sorry. For one thing, I have no problem with people being congratulated here for achieving accolades - I have done so myself in the past.
With regards to having fewer threads, it's no kind of rule - just my preference based on what seems sensible to me, and I only meant to give my reasons for thinking that. The converse is also true, though - people sometimes post in a relatively irrelevant thread because there is no more apt one (or because they do not look for it). In those cases, my opinion is that they should start a new thread (or look for the one there already is). |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 11/23/2006 : 11:44:56
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
I'd try to keep the number of different threads to a minimum, Ghost and Baffy. That way benj can stay focused more easily...
Yes, there has been a proliferation of threads recently. Posting in the right threads also keeps them live. For example, there was a very long-standing Accolades thread, but then people started posting whole threads whenever they had created a new accolade, or someone had achieved one, etc. etc., so that it has been lost.
Yeah, that would be me   Sorry. 
Sorry, I thought that's what we were supposed to do; taking my cue from others who'd done so. I think Josh's Accolade Central has helped clear up the confusion, and another plea to make it sticky.
Sorry to all and especially Benj for any inadvertant extra work.
Just to explain my strategy for publically congratulating my acc achievers - it was a shameless ploy to entice others to visit my accolades. Apparently it's offended some people, so I'll stop doing it.
All this back-biting and sniping is quite hurtful, and might be avoided if the unwritten rules were a bit more accesible to those of us who haven't been here quite as long as others. I do try to be a good and helpful fwfr-er. If I've offended you - or others - in any way, it's totally unintentional and please forgive me.
May I please request if you have anything else subliminally nasty to say about me, can you please have the courtesy to PM me instead of this silly sniping.
Thanks in advance.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 11/23/2006 : 10:55:27
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
I'd try to keep the number of different threads to a minimum, Ghost and Baffy. That way benj can stay focused more easily...
Yes, there has been a proliferation of threads recently. Posting in the right threads also keeps them live. For example, there was a very long-standing Accolades thread, but then people started posting whole threads whenever they had created a new accolade, or someone had achieved one, etc. etc., so that it has been lost. |
| randall |
Posted - 11/22/2006 : 19:37:15
quote:
Originally posted by Gentleman Ghost
I had added this one to the "Repeated Movie" thread.
Should I just start a new thread next time? 
I'd try to keep the number of different threads to a minimum, Ghost and Baffy. That way benj can stay focused more easily... |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 14:51:06
quote:
Originally posted by Gentleman Ghost
I had added this one to the "Repeated Movie" thread.
Should I just start a new thread next time?
Oops! Didn't see that GGhost!
Maybe Benj has, though
|
| Gentleman Ghost |
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 14:00:44
I had added this one to the "Repeated Movie" thread.
Should I just start a new thread next time? |
|
|
