If Chiefs Planet did a combine to evaluate potential members...

[|Zach|]

If Chiefs Planet did a combine for potential new members what kind of test would they have to go through? What would the criteria be to avoid doom and raise your own stock as a message board poster? Who gives the interviews?

:)

[Boozer]

Would they have to be attention whores? :hmmm:

:) [/Mr. Kotter]

[David.]

post count per day.

It's alll about the post count per day.

[David.]

oh POTENTIAL members.


guess reading comprehension should be taken off.

[4th and Long]

[Maurice Clarett voice]What? There's going to be testing now? I'm proven damnit! But hey, thats cool. OK, I can do this. I can do this ...



Fook this! I quit![/Maurice Clarett voice]

[|Zach|]

oh POTENTIAL members.


guess reading comprehension should be taken off.
I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I saw this. ROFL

[Phobia]

I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I saw this. ROFL

Yeah, I think that's probably his best post of all time.

[Phobia]

I dunno what criteria we should seek, but I think we should attempt to avoid ENDelt style posters in the future. Jeesh.

[Mr. Kotter]

Would they have to be attention whores? :hmmm:

:) [/Mr. Kotter]

Why, yes, they would; even you bastards that are in denial--like the one's who insist on the semantic distinctions of "I'm here for 'interaction'." are really AWs in denial. :p

[Boozer]

I dunno what criteria we should seek, but I think we should attempt to avoid ENDelt style posters in the future. Jeesh.

I hold him responsible for the database problems resulting in the unavailability of the search function.

[Phobia]

oooh big accomplishment. Look what I usually post

That was teed up and I fully expected someone to take a swing at your head - little did I realize it would be you....

[|Zach|]

I hold him responsible for the database problems resulting in the unavailability of the search function.
I have been waiting a long time for someone to pin that on. I will gather the angry mob.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blumert/mob.jpg

[David.]

That was teed up and I fully expected someone to take a swing at your head - little did I realize it would be you....

yeah but I quoted the wrong post ROFL

I suck at this "internet" thing.

[|Zach|]

Why, yes, they would; even you bastards that are in denial--like the one's who insist on the semantic distinctions of "I'm here for 'interaction'." are really AWs in denial. :p
I think Jenny Gump debunked that whole thread and the theory in it.

[Phobia]

I think Jenny Gump debunked that whole thread and the theory in it.

If by "debunked" you mean she showed up on the thread and teased all the menfolk; thereby creating a major distraction..... I agree. She's quite talented, that JennyGump.

[Mr. Kotter]

I think Jenny Gump debunked that whole thread and the theory in it.

And if you were following closely, you'd see I countered her. She calls it "desire for interaction;" I call it "attention." The silly distinction is a semantic one--my premise stands, as I see it.

So it's Jenny's "serve." :p

[Saulbadguy]

Proper punctuation. No extra commas.

[Boozer]

And if you were following closely, you'd see I countered her. She calls it "desire for interaction;" I call it "attention." The silly disitinction is a semantic one--my premise stands, as I see it.


No it doesn't. The former is a two-way street, the latter is one-way.

[Mr. Kotter]

No it doesn't. The former is a two-way street, the latter is one-way.

You must be stoned. Anyone wishing attention, wishes an 'exchange'.....duh. An aspiring lawyer should know that better than anyone else on the planet....heh.

[chiefs4me]

I dunno what criteria we should seek, but I think we should attempt to avoid ENDelt style posters in the future. Jeesh.






:)

[chiefs4me]

And they should be a least 30 years old....:harumph:

[Boozer]

You must be stoned. Anyone wishing attention, wishes an 'exchange'.....duh. An aspiring lawyer should know that better than anyone else on the planet....heh.

You suck at logic.

Even though some of those who seek attention must necessarily seek interaction, that does not mean that all of those who seek interaction necessarily seek attention.

[Braincase]

I'd like to work with Rain Man on the Chiefs Planet version of the Wunderlick.

[Mr. Kotter]

You suck at logic.

Even though some of those who seek attention must necessarily seek interaction, that does not mean that all of those who seek interaction necessarily seek attention.

I'm gonna quote that gem before you have the time to edit it.... ROFL

Okay, Einstein...if one is seeking "interaction," how is that NOT attention? :hmmm:

ROFL

[Phobia]

guntherfan is one of those who is an attention whore - he doesn't give a shit about the interaction - he's just in it for the attention.... as a longtime observer of the dude's behavior.

[Boozer]

I'm gonna quote that gem before you have the time to edit it.... ROFL


ROFL...the fact that you think my statement is inconsistent speaks volumes.

[Boozer]

guntherfan is one of those who is an attention whore - he doesn't give a shit about the interaction - he's just in it for the attention.... as a longtime observer of the dude's behavior.

Thanks a bunch for explaining why Rob is wrong. Saves me the trouble.

[Mr. Kotter]

You suck at logic.

Even though some of those who seek attention must necessarily seek interaction, that does not mean that all of those who seek interaction necessarily seek attention.

Okay, Einstein...if one is seeking "interaction," how is that NOT attention? :hmmm:

ROFL

[Raiderhater]

You must be stoned. Anyone wishing attention, wishes an 'exchange'.....duh. An aspiring lawyer should know that better than anyone else on the planet....heh.


That is not necessarily the case. I know many people who want everyone to just shut up and pay their full attention to them.

Try again.

[Braincase]

I'm gonna quote that gem before you have the time to edit it.... ROFL

Okay, Einstein...if one is seeking "interaction," how is that NOT attention? :hmmm:

ROFL

You're kidding me? You can't honestly tell the difference between a conversationalist and an attention-whore?

[Mr. Kotter]

guntherfan is one of those who is an attention whore - he doesn't give a shit about the interaction - he's just in it for the attention.... as a longtime observer of the dude's behavior.

If that's the case, then anyone who believes me to be an AW is a complete and utter moron then.... ROFL

[Boozer]

Jeez Rob, you're so wrong it hurts.

[Boozer]

If that's the case, then anyone who believes me to be an AW is a complete and utter moron then.... ROFL

I'll sign up on that moron list, who is with me?

[Raiderhater]

I'm gonna quote that gem before you have the time to edit it.... ROFL

Okay, Einstein...if one is seeking "interaction," how is that NOT attention? :hmmm:

ROFL


One shows interests in others, the latter shows interest only in one's self.

[Raiderhater]

I'll sign up on that moron list, who is with me?


I reckon my John Hancock can be added to the list.

[pink]

That is not necessarily the case. I know many people who want everyone to just shut up and pay their full attention to them.

Try again.
are we thinking of the same person ? ;)

[Phobia]

I'm a moron but I never called you an attention whore, Rob.

I don't think there is a catch all label for you.

[|Zach|]

And they should be a least 30 years old....:harumph:
Screw you.

[pink]

I'm a moron ...

you'll get no argument from me. [kisses]

[PastorMikH]

How about refferences of at least 3 of their prior message BBs, most recent first. Someone from the membership commitee could contact the BBs and get a post/spam ratio of said applicant.

[Mr. Kotter]

You're kidding me? You can't honestly tell the difference between a conversationalist and an attention-whore?

THAT isn't the issue; the issue was....anyone who "desires interaction," also desires 'attention.' Whether it was to the extreme of beccoming an attention whore was not the point....that's the debate we were having in MY mind.

Of course, some are extreme; but to argue that converstaion is not for attention is silly...IMHO.

[|Zach|]

Congratulations, Zach. You started Rob's regular dumbass thread for him. I'm sure he appreciates you saving him the effort of clicking on the "New Thread" button.
Yup, not what I was going for.

[Raiderhater]

are we thinking of the same person ? ;)


Probably.

[|Zach|]

How about refferences of at least 3 of their prior message BBs, most recent first. Someone from the membership commitee could contact the BBs and get a post/spam ratio of said applicant.
We should get someone in charge of making a potential member questionare. ROFL

[Boozer]

Congratulations, Zach. You started Rob's regular dumbass thread for him. I'm sure he appreciates you saving him the effort of clicking on the "New Thread" button.

Alright, that does it. I'm going to throw down the gauntlet right here.

Rob, I'm planning on starting a thread six months from now (July 27, 2005) to the effect of "Boy, Rob hasn't started an attention whore thread in awhile." I really want to post that. Will you let me do that, that is, will you hold off on posting such a thread?

[Raiderhater]

What's funny is, I don't honestly believe Rob is unintelligent enough to believe all of the nonsense he's posted. I'd venture so far as to say it's just another example of his attention whore-ism manifesting itself. Adopt ridiculous premises and do a poor job of arguing them... just so long as you remain the topic of conversation.


In other words, he has turned into the male version of Denise?


Oh God! Spare me the insanity!

[Raiderhater]

We should get someone in charge of making a potential member questionare. ROFL


FTR I would just like to say, I'm glad that I am already a member.

[|Zach|]

Alright, that does it. I'm going to throw down the gauntlet right here.


http://www.spiral.org.uk/acatalog/gauntlet.jpg

[|Zach|]

FTR I would just like to say, I'm glad that I am already a member.
Indeed, you would never get thtrough this process.

Go rush with the Orangemane.

[Mr. Kotter]

Alright, that does it. I'm going to throw down the gauntlet right here.

Rob, I'm planning on starting a thread six months from now (July 27, 2005) to the effect of "Boy, Rob hasn't started an attention whore thread in awhile." I really want to post that. Will you let me do that, that is, will you hold off on posting such a thread?


I suppose that means, unless it's Football...it's not fair game to start a thread. I concede some threads were to "stir the pot," or whatever. But now, hell....ANYTHING I post is immediately an "attention whore" thread, unless it is FB.

Whatever. ROFL

[pink]

FTR I would just like to say, I'm glad that I am already a member.
yeah, i know a lot of folks that will sleep better tonight knowing they don't have to pass a test based on their personality ...

[Braincase]

What's funny is, I don't honestly believe Rob is unintelligent enough to believe all of the nonsense he's posted. I'd venture so far as to say it's just another example of his attention whore-ism manifesting itself. Adopt ridiculous premises and do a poor job of arguing them... just so long as you remain the topic of conversation.

Yeah... I thought that was MY job.

[|Zach|]

Well this is par for the course. When the majority of people disagree with Rob's take on something he goes on about how misguided they are for their opinion.

Although, if he starts in with something that is chock full of dumbassery and comes around to realize it he will tell us he is just playing a role here and we are shitheads for not realizing it.

[|Zach|]

I'm a shithead, but not for that reason.
arise chicken!

[Braincase]

Well this is par for the course. When the majority of people disagree with Rob's take on something he goes on about how misguided they are for their opinion.

Although, if he starts in with something that is chock full of dumbassery and comes around to realize it he will tell us he is just playing a role here and we are shitheads for not realizing it.

I am a shithead, but for completely different reasons.

http://www.zrlm.com/studio561/Shithead2.JPG

[Boozer]

I suppose that means, unless it's Football...it's not fair game to start a thread. I concede some threads were to "stir the pot," or whatever. But now, hell....ANYTHING I post is immediately an "attention whore" thread, unless it is FB.

Whatever. ROFL

No, it means, "Don't start a thread with the topic 'Talk about me.'"

[Raiderhater]

Indeed, you would never get thtrough this process.

No sh!t.

Go rush with the Orangemane.

Hey, hey, hey now! Wait just one gosh darned minute! Let's not get stupid here.

[Raiderhater]

yeah, i know a lot of folks that will sleep better tonight knowing they don't have to pass a test based on their personality ...


Are we thinking of the same person?

[|Zach|]

Hey, hey, hey now! Wait just one gosh darned minute! Let's not get stupid here.
:)

[pink]

Are we thinking of the same person?
probably.

[pink]

Hey, hey, hey now! Wait just one gosh darned minute! Let's not get stupid here.

is "too late" a given here?

[Boozer]

Alright, that does it. I'm going to throw down the gauntlet right here.

Rob, I'm planning on starting a thread six months from now (July 27, 2005) to the effect of "Boy, Rob hasn't started an attention whore thread in awhile." I really want to post that. Will you let me do that, that is, will you hold off on posting such a thread?

It's added to my "To do" list. For the good of the Planet, please don't make a liar out of me.

[HemiEd]

I'll sign up on that moron list, who is with me?
count me in

[Mr. Kotter]

Well this is par for the course. When the majority of people disagree with Rob's take on something he goes on about how misguided they are for their opinion.

Although, if he starts in with something that is chock full of dumbassery and comes around to realize it he will tell us he is just playing a role here and we are shitheads for not realizing it.

I can remember ONCE calling someone a shithead Zach, and it wasn't even you... :)

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, in my world.

It's a good thing we have you, Brian, Boozer, and a few others to make sure the rest of us know when we are wrong.

[Jenny Gump]

And if you were following closely, you'd see I countered her. She calls it "desire for interaction;" I call it "attention." The silly distinction is a semantic one--my premise stands, as I see it.

So it's Jenny's "serve." :p

And serve I will...

Your argument that there is no difference between calling attention to yourself and desiring interaction is ridiculous. You are insisting we look at semantics, so let's...

Interaction is a process, a two-way street. Some desire interaction for the purpose of only getting said "attention". Others desire a more complete communication process through interaction, the real exchange of ideas, even if they are whimsical or for the purpose of humor or belittling others.

Certainly, you are correct that anyone who posts here has a purpose, and in order to read a post, one must "pay attention" to it by reading it, understanding it, etc. However, the extreme is the attention-seeker, who has no desire for the exchange of ideas, unless of course, they are congruent with the philosophy of the attention-seeker himself.

It's about the end result, and the means you apply to get there.

[Mr. Kotter]

I am a shithead, but for completely different reasons....

Well, at least the conversation will be intelligent among the shitheads... :p

[Mr. Kotter]

And serve I will...

Your argument that there is no difference between calling attention to yourself and desiring interaction is ridiculous. You are insisting we look at semantics, so let's...

Interaction is a process, a two-way street. Some desire interaction for the purpose of only getting said "attention". Others desire a more complete communication process through interaction, the real exchange of ideas, even if they are whimsical or for the purpose of humor or belittling others.

Certainly, you are correct that anyone who posts here has a purpose, and in order to read a post, one must "pay attention" to it by reading it, understanding it, etc. However, the extreme is the attention-seeker, who has no desire for the exchange of ideas, unless of course, they are congruent with the philosophy of the attention-seeker himself.

It's about the end result, and the means you apply to get there.

Lord knows my conversation here is never two-way. Guess you got me, I never, ever talk to anyone, or about anyone else.

Ace. Game, set, match, eh.

Woe is me.... ROFL

[Boozer]

It's a good thing we [have] you, Brian, Boozer, and a few others to make sure the rest of us know when we are wrong.

Substitute "we" for "I" and I'm sure we'll all be in agreement.

[Boozer]

Lord knows my conversation here is never two-way. Guess you got me, I never, ever talk to anyone, or about anyone else.

Ace. Game, set, match, eh.

Woe is me.... ROFL

Wow, Rob becomes a winner (and a legend) in his own mind once again.

[Mr. Kotter]

Certainly, you are correct that anyone who posts here has a purpose, and in order to read a post, one must "pay attention" to it by reading it, understanding it, etc. However, the extreme is the attention-seeker, who has no desire for the exchange of ideas, unless of course, they are congruent with the philosophy of the attention-seeker himself.

It's about the end result, and the means you apply to get there.

Whether one is extreme or simply bored, I suppose is a subjective matter....thanks for your concession though--really. :thumb:

[Mr. Kotter]

Wow, Rob becomes a winner (and a legend) in his own mind once again.

No, no...I just awarded the match to her. Wouldn't you?

I have. Now I can sleep at night. :D

[Jenny Gump]

Well, I don't have the energy to play this match...Rob, please put your balls away.

[Boozer]

No, no...I just awarded the match to her. Wouldn't you?

I have. Now I can sleep at night. :D

I'd sleep much better knowing you weren’t going to pollute my favorite message board anymore.

[Boozer]

"Heh... I think I'll make a post that suggests I have a complete inability to comprehend Jenny's post... that should be sufficient to bait someone into continuing this conversation about me... even if it is just to point out their belief that I'm an idiot."

Touche.

[Jenny Gump]

"Heh... I think I'll make a post that suggests I have a complete inability to comprehend Jenny's post... that should be sufficient to bait someone into continuing this conversation about me... even if it is just to point out their belief that I'm an idiot."

OMG. I am complete. Thank you.

[go bo]

Would they have to be attention whores? :hmmm:

:) [/Mr. Kotter]ROFL ROFL ROFL

either that or drama queens... :p :p :p

[go bo]

You must be stoned. Anyone wishing attention, wishes an 'exchange'.....duh. An aspiring lawyer should know that better than anyone else on the planet....heh.hey!

how dare you besmirch poor old boozer's reputation like that...






oh, wait...

[Skip Towne]

I think most of us agree that Rob is not a very smart man. He obviously craves attention as he continues to battle the consensus of the board. He doesn't care if he is being the fool, he just cares that he is the topic of the conversation.

[go bo]

If that's the case, then anyone who believes me to be an AW is a complete and utter moron then.... ROFLcomplete and utter?

i would have copped to just plain moron, but NOOOO, you have to specify complete and utter...



btw, is an utter a cousin of an udder?

[go bo]

I'll sign up on that moron list, who is with me?*raises hand*

[go bo]

What's funny is, I don't honestly believe Rob is unintelligent enough to believe all of the nonsense he's posted. I'd venture so far as to say it's just another example of his attention whore-ism manifesting itself. Adopt ridiculous premises and do a poor job of arguing them... just so long as you remain the topic of conversation.attention whore-ism...

sounds bad, is it fatal?

even more important, is it contagious?

[go bo]

http://www.spiral.org.uk/acatalog/gauntlet.jpgcan you imagine getting slapped with one of these?

[Boozer]

attention whore-ism...

sounds bad, is it fatal?



More importantly, is it a case amenable to assisted suicide?

[go bo]

I suppose that means, unless it's Football...it's not fair game to start a thread. I concede some threads were to "stir the pot," or whatever. But now, hell....ANYTHING I post is immediately an "attention whore" thread, unless it is FB.

Whatever. ROFLahhhhh, grasshopper...

self-awareness is the first step to enlightenment... :p :p :p

[go bo]

Well this is par for the course. When the majority of people disagree with Rob's take on something he goes on about how misguided they are for their opinion.

Although, if he starts in with something that is chock full of dumbassery and comes around to realize it he will tell us he is just playing a role here and we are shitheads for not realizing it."chock full of dumbassery"... ROFL ROFL ROFL

sounds sorta like an ad for a new candy bar...

[go bo]

It's added to my "To do" list. For the good of the Planet, please don't make a liar out of me.liar!!

[go bo]

Well, I don't have the energy to play this match...Rob, please put your balls away.damn, i heard he didn't have...

oops, think of the children...

[go bo]

"Heh... I think I'll make a post that suggests I have a complete inability to comprehend Jenny's post... that should be sufficient to bait someone into continuing this conversation about me... even if it is just to point out their belief that I'm an idiot."you know, you should probably go and drink some more now...

because if you keep up like this, people are gonna start to think you're intelligent and well spoken...

[go bo]

More importantly, is it a case amenable to assisted suicide?let me check with dr. k and get back to you on that...