Replying to RFC 616
Posted 06 January 2013 - 12:45 PM
The Four Horsemen
Posted 10 January 2006 - 07:39 PM
Posted 10 January 2006 - 05:03 PM
Can I suggest that you add the following to the list:
[*]The post contains one or more instances of misuse of "there / their / they're / there're".
[*]The post contains one or more instances of misuse of "your / you're".
[*]The post contains one or more instances of misuse of "could have / would have / should have" by replacement with "could of / would of / should of"?
Posted 26 October 2005 - 01:35 AM
It's late and I'm pissed now, so I put off writing up my ideas a bit.
Q: What's the smallest room in the world?
A: A mushroom.
Q: What's the largest room in the world?
A: Room for improvement.
Posted 25 October 2005 - 09:57 PM
Already had a shot at it
Anyone care to hazard a score for this rant.
Posted 25 October 2005 - 09:53 PM
You F*****g sick c**ts, making fun of a heroine for having dementia. If any of you worthless, stupid freaks had a relavtive with Alzheimer's you would be laughing on the other side of your face. If you ever said any of this crap to me in person I would break your F*****g neck. This is the sickest site ever, it should be closed down immediately. May you all suffer for your evil and stupid comments. You sad, pathetic losers sitting behind a computer screen wishing death on great men and women. And now Rosa is dead and it is because of f*****g c**ts like you. F**k you all, cowards. f**k you all. c**ts.
Quite a literate rant this, apart from giving us all one neck and one computer screen between us. This ranter wishes us suffering, though doesn't directly wish us death or Hell as stipulated in section 1 elements 7 & 8.
"This site should be closed down immediately" comes once in a while, and should be worth a point.
Then we have a case of "How would you like it if one of your relatives...." but not directly saying that a relative of the Ranter is in that position. Another thing not explicitly covered by the rules as they stand.
Anyone care to hazard a score for this rant?
Posted 25 October 2005 - 04:22 PM
In eternum+ has a point. Perhaps we should consider awarding points for Overall Artistic Impression (or its opposite), Involuntary Humour and General Impression of Insanity.
How fabulous - snaps!
Is there any possibility for having some form of 'wildcard' points for rants that are really really funny? I mean, you know how sometimes you read a rant and it's well, just a rant, and then sometimes you read one and it's SO rantsome that it's actually hilarious?
Not sure which threadit was in, but I remember a while ago reading a rant that was just SO random and SO outrageous (and of course met a number of DLRI616 criteria) that it actually made me laugh out loud.
Just a thought. Can't go wrong with a bit of humour now and again.
Perhaps a system of special awards or bonuses would work, because otherwise the scoring system could be screwed up by having attributes which exclude one another, thus making it imposssible to get the maximum number of points.
Slave to the Grave
Posted 25 October 2005 - 01:31 PM
Posted 25 October 2005 - 01:28 PM
No, I don't work in local government. In the past I did work against local government, but the pay was awful, i.e. none.He is probably working in I.T. I remember him mentioning something about programming in a previous thread.
Do you work in local government? (something about your post suggests that you might....)
Yes, I'm a computer programmer, but my business card says "IT consultant", because that pays more. I spend a considerable part of my time writing technical specification. I suppose it shows.
Indeed, but I don't complain, as long as I'm paid for IT.What a terrible thing to say about somebody.
But he's obviously a person who writes lots of memos at work.
Posted 25 October 2005 - 07:53 AM