Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Revised policy on non-cricket threads  (Read 4286 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

dextrous

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16,763
Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« on: September 29, 2008, 04:50:02 PM »

Due to concerns expressed by many members over the large number of non-cricket threads on the cricket discussion forum, the moderators met and have come up with a revised policy for non-cricket thread.

Starting Oct 1st:

(A) We urge members to start threads and use the ETC/Other Sports board for topics that are not immediate urgent news.
(B) If members choose to start a non-cricket thread in the cricket General Cricket Discussion board, the thread will be left on the board, in most cases, for approximately 24 hours. An exception to this are threads (including but not limited to) site bugs, news, and announcements. But as a general rule, most non-cricket threads will be on the main board for approximately 24 hours.
Logged

vincent

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,445
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2008, 05:56:24 PM »

I agree that there should not be too many non-cricket articles in the general cricket discussion. But then if you forbid all other posts then you become another "me too" cricket forum. Crciket should be the most important topic of this DG. But then when there is not too much going around, especially in terms of India playing, there should be other topics that keep the people hooked. This is the basic principle of "marketing".

The fact is there is no much choice here. There is only a General Cricket Discussion and a wastebasket called Etc. In the good old day there were other sections like Food/Cuisine, Humour etc. Those things are now burried under archives.

The sincere suggestion I have is that you have following sections:

- Cricket Discussions (most impotant no doubt), can have many sub topics

- Other Sports

- Politics and general Topics

- Humour Zone

- Travel, Cusine etc.


The wastebaskets of Etc and Archives may not be helpful in terms of visits.
Logged

dextrous

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16,763
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2008, 06:04:03 PM »

I agree that there should not be too many non-cricket articles in the general cricket discussion. But then if you forbid all other posts then you become another "me too" cricket forum. Crciket should be the most important topic of this DG. But then when there is not too much going around, especially in terms of India playing, there should be other topics that keep the people hooked. This is the basic principle of "marketing".

The fact is there is no much choice here. There is only a General Cricket Discussion and a wastebasket called Etc. In the good old day there were other sections like Food/Cuisine, Humour etc. Those things are now burried under archives.

The sincere suggestion I have is that you have following sections:

- Cricket Discussions (most impotant no doubt), can have many sub topics

- Other Sports

- Politics and general Topics

- Humour Zone

- Travel, Cusine etc.


The wastebaskets of Etc and Archives may not be helpful in terms of visits.

Actually, almost at all times in last three years we've had General Dicussion, ETC, other-sports. Other additions were there briefly; while there's a lot of debate even among the moderators abotu whether or not it was helpful to have such sub-categories, the majority felt we didn't have the membership base to sustain that many boards as people were simply not visiting each of them. On any given day, most members only visit these three forums under the new structure unless they need to find something from the archive. It isn't as if we're discouraging people from discussing non-cricket posts, simply asking them to do so in the ETC board more often, which will mean more people will visit that section as well.

What you call "wastebasket" are old archived threads; when posts get moved from ETC after a reasonable duration then they get filed in archives. 
Logged

OldPal

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,648
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2008, 06:15:53 PM »

Dex,
I am not sure, If a post of mine was also used to add some work for you folks, but personally  i have no qualms with NC posts, I feel they only help the DG to get more hits.
My reservations were only against certain posts, that were posted with known intention, well underastanding their impact. Mainly targeting the post proclaming
"Religion1 as dirtiest" .
Had instead of Religion1, If there was a prolamation that  "Religion2 was dirtiest", I am quite confident that the thread would have been deleted or locked or acted upon my mods. 
Had the intend of such threads been genuine, I had no issues.
This is not news to anyone that such threads were not posted with the intend of discussion, instead to provoke anger and thus seek subsequent posts on it. This is where i had/have issues.
If somebody wants to be politically successful, Please don't spread disharmony here(DG) to use it as your learning pad.
I am fine with the policies and would abide by them, but wanted to clarify that I don't dislike NC threads as long as they are with right intends. The one IMO was an exception.

 ------
The understading is the underneath post was taken as my dislike of NC topics.

This was a random response to another random article, like the most of the ones floating around.
Incase  wondering why I am pasting random articles here. This is to try stop insulting DG members and use DG as learning for political startup.
I was clear from your post1 when you used the word DATA  to conclude that Hinduism was the dirtiest religion of all. The data given was "being to one Mosqe and 1000ís of temple". It was imperative to me there was a hidden agenda of insulting people and having fun.
Thus every subsequent post lost their meaning, no matter whatever their their intend may be
Logged

dextrous

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16,763
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2008, 06:29:12 PM »

Pankaj,
I personally agree with you that some posts should remain in General Cricket as they raise a lot of posts but the dominant opinion is that leaving some posts on here (and not others) will lead to claims of bias and cause unncessary tensions. So, the hope is to make the ETC board as active as this one
« Last Edit: September 29, 2008, 06:38:46 PM by dextrous »
Logged

flute

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Mother India
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2008, 06:40:21 PM »

Dex,
I am not sure, If a post of mine was also used to add some work for you folks, but personally  i have no qualms with NC posts, I feel they only help the DG to get more hits.
My reservations were only against certain posts, that were posted with known intention, well underastanding their impact. Mainly targeting the post proclaming
"Religion1 as dirtiest" .
Had instead of Religion1, If there was a prolamation that  "Religion2 was dirtiest", I am quite confident that the thread would have been deleted or locked or acted upon my mods. 
Had the intend of such threads been genuine, I had no issues.
This is not news to anyone that such threads were not posted with the intend of discussion, instead to provoke anger and thus seek subsequent posts on it. This is where i had/have issues.
If somebody wants to be politically successful, Please don't spread disharmony here(DG) to use it as your learning pad.
I am fine with the policies and would abide by them, but wanted to clarify that I don't dislike NC threads as long as they are with right intends. The one IMO was an exception.

 ------
The understading is the underneath post was taken as my dislike of NC topics.

This was a random response to another random article, like the most of the ones floating around.
Incase  wondering why I am pasting random articles here. This is to try stop insulting DG members and use DG as learning for political startup.
I was clear from your post1 when you used the word DATA  to conclude that Hinduism was the dirtiest religion of all. The data given was "being to one Mosqe and 1000ís of temple". It was imperative to me there was a hidden agenda of insulting people and having fun.
Thus every subsequent post lost their meaning, no matter whatever their their intend may be

I realise logic or reason goes out the window once religion is involved. There is no way to prove that my intentions were not an agenda of insulting your religion or anyone's . My idea was mainly to discuss dirty temples which is a fact of life. If it helps to assuage your feelings, I can very well change the title of the thread. Mind you,changing the title doesn't change my opinion. A simple "dirty temples" titled thread would have died out with one or two posts. But, in an attempt to elicit more responses, I probably diverted the discussion onto me rather than the subject at hand. I miscalculated the level of protest from some on this.

My thinking was, if our temples are so bad that we are competing for the possible dirtiest title, it will lead to introspection on this DG ( since most on the DG seem to be hindu). My thoughts and posts were so twisted beyond recogniton that I am made out to be some hindu hater etc. I never envisaed any such reaction or backlash on this DG.

Again, no, I am not Amitabh Bacchan to apologise as soon as Raj Thackerey starts making noise. I am not MF Hissain to quietly leave the country fearing backlash. My opinions still remain. This culture of getting offended for everything and then stifling the person's voice in India is increasing to himalayan proportions and I hope this DG doesn't fall prey to it. So far, DG has been wonderful in that respect.

With equal malice towards all religions
Flute
Logged
Where the mind is without fear and the head held high;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
let my country awake.

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,755
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2008, 06:58:20 PM »

Due to concerns expressed by many members over the large number of non-cricket threads on the cricket discussion forum, the moderators met and have come up with a revised policy for non-cricket thread.

Starting Oct 1st:

(A) We urge members to start threads and use the ETC/Other Sports board for topics that are not immediate urgent news.
(B) If members choose to start a non-cricket thread in the cricket General Cricket Discussion board, the thread will be left on the board, in most cases, for approximately 24 hours. An exception to this are threads (including but not limited to) site bugs, news, and announcements. But as a general rule, most non-cricket threads will be on the main board for approximately 24 hours.

It is a difficult issue -- as you well know, one reason for the high number of non-cricket posts is the lack of cricket. My suspicion is that once you move all NC thread to etc there will be little activity on the main board.

I do see that people may not like to discuss US politics, especially if they are not in the US (I would argue that this election affects the whole world ...).

Logged

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,755
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #7 on: September 29, 2008, 07:10:45 PM »


My idea was mainly to discuss dirty temples which is a fact of life. If it helps to assuage your feelings, I can very well change the title of the thread. Mind you,changing the title doesn't change my opinion. A simple "dirty temples" titled thread would have died out with one or two posts. But, in an attempt to elicit more responses, I probably diverted the discussion onto me rather than the subject at hand. I miscalculated the level of protest from some on this.

You wanted more discussion, you got it  ;D

Seriously, if a topic is not discussed much, then people have their reasons to not discuss it. You provoke people and you get the wrong discussion. To me it is not worth the trouble.

There are truths people do not want to discuss. If someone's son is a brat, they would be upset and angry if you found even a decent way (let alone a provocative one) to tell them that. You would almost never result in their introspection. Being provocative makes it much worse. I am surprised you did not realize this from the original Ganguly discussion. Or maybe you fell for the "all SG supporters are stupid" trap  ;D
Logged

flute

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Mother India
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #8 on: September 29, 2008, 09:22:43 PM »


My idea was mainly to discuss dirty temples which is a fact of life. If it helps to assuage your feelings, I can very well change the title of the thread. Mind you,changing the title doesn't change my opinion. A simple "dirty temples" titled thread would have died out with one or two posts. But, in an attempt to elicit more responses, I probably diverted the discussion onto me rather than the subject at hand. I miscalculated the level of protest from some on this.

You wanted more discussion, you got it  ;D

Seriously, if a topic is not discussed much, then people have their reasons to not discuss it. You provoke people and you get the wrong discussion. To me it is not worth the trouble.

There are truths people do not want to discuss. If someone's son is a brat, they would be upset and angry if you found even a decent way (let alone a provocative one) to tell them that. You would almost never result in their introspection. Being provocative makes it much worse. I am surprised you did not realize this from the original Ganguly discussion. Or maybe you fell for the "all SG supporters are stupid" trap  ;D
prfsr saab, I made critical miscalculation not in knowing that criticizing someone's son will cause tension. I made miscalculation in not knowing that constructive criticism of  one's own son will also cause the other parent to accuse the first parent of being enemy of their own son. Afterall, I thought heck I am criticizing my own religion , introspection should be easy, people on the DG know me well enough. That is where I made the miscalculation. I can't help chuckle to myself when I read some of the posts characterising me as some enemy of hindus, while on the other I have a few friends who think I am fanatic hindu because I support Ram Mandir reconstruction. ah well.
Logged
Where the mind is without fear and the head held high;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
let my country awake.

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,755
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #9 on: September 29, 2008, 09:29:08 PM »

prfsr saab, I made critical miscalculation not in knowing that criticizing someone's son will cause tension. I made miscalculation in not knowing that constructive criticism of  one's own son will also cause the other parent to accuse the first parent of being enemy of their own son. Afterall, I thought heck I am criticizing my own religion , introspection should be easy, people on the DG know me well enough. That is where I made the miscalculation. I can't help chuckle to myself when I read some of the posts characterising me as some enemy of hindus, while on the other I have a few friends who think I am fanatic hindu because I support Ram Mandir reconstruction. ah well.

Really? (question for each of the bolded parts).

Plus apparently for some people having an online persona different from their real persona is not that hard. So how do we know your real persona and online persona are in synch?
Logged

flute

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Mother India
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #10 on: September 29, 2008, 09:37:16 PM »

prfsr saab, I made critical miscalculation not in knowing that criticizing someone's son will cause tension. I made miscalculation in not knowing that constructive criticism of  one's own son will also cause the other parent to accuse the first parent of being enemy of their own son. Afterall, I thought heck I am criticizing my own religion , introspection should be easy, people on the DG know me well enough. That is where I made the miscalculation. I can't help chuckle to myself when I read some of the posts characterising me as some enemy of hindus, while on the other I have a few friends who think I am fanatic hindu because I support Ram Mandir reconstruction. ah well.

Really? (question for each of the bolded parts).

Plus apparently for some people having an online persona different from their real persona is not that hard. So how do we know your real persona and online persona are in synch?
know me in the sense, people are well aware of my language, my religion, where I come from in India etc., .  Not exactly knowing all aspects of my personality. I thought people we need not think that some guy with an extremist background is on here to insult someone's religion, but as I already said, I was wrong. I am really surprised by the level of backlash. for example, Dex strongly insists on writing my biography and follows me to every thread.  :D
Logged
Where the mind is without fear and the head held high;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
let my country awake.

LosingNow

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24,294
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #11 on: September 29, 2008, 10:28:05 PM »

After all, I thought heck I am criticizing my own religion , introspection should be easy, people on the DG know me well enough.
..and that makes it OK ??? (I get it, blacks can call themselves niggers - it becomes a term of endearment when they do it ;D )
Logged
Play with heart. Win with class. Lose with dignity

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #12 on: September 29, 2008, 10:30:17 PM »

After all, I thought heck I am criticizing my own religion , introspection should be easy, people on the DG know me well enough.
..and that makes it OK ??? (I get it, blacks can call themselves niggers - it becomes a term of endearment when they do it ;D )

not commenting in general, but to your specific example --yes, it does make it ok. So your analogy is way off.

And if they allow you to call them that, then that means you are well and truly accepted as a brother.
Logged

LosingNow

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24,294
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #13 on: September 29, 2008, 10:41:12 PM »

After all, I thought heck I am criticizing my own religion , introspection should be easy, people on the DG know me well enough.
..and that makes it OK ??? (I get it, blacks can call themselves niggers - it becomes a term of endearment when they do it ;D )

not commenting in general, but to your specific example --yes, it does make it ok. So your analogy is way off.

And if they allow you to call them that, then that means you are well and truly accepted as a brother.
Got it .. now flute can be truly accepted as a Hindu !
Logged
Play with heart. Win with class. Lose with dignity

flute

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Mother India
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #14 on: September 30, 2008, 12:16:32 AM »

After all, I thought heck I am criticizing my own religion , introspection should be easy, people on the DG know me well enough.
..and that makes it OK ??? (I get it, blacks can call themselves niggers - it becomes a term of endearment when they do it ;D )

not commenting in general, but to your specific example --yes, it does make it ok. So your analogy is way off.

And if they allow you to call them that, then that means you are well and truly accepted as a brother.
Got it .. now flute can be truly accepted as a Hindu !
thank you for your certificate. are you also working for Shankar Matt somewhere in Hyd and got the official mandate to declare people hindu?
Logged
Where the mind is without fear and the head held high;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
let my country awake.

LosingNow

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24,294
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2008, 12:19:13 AM »

After all, I thought heck I am criticizing my own religion , introspection should be easy, people on the DG know me well enough.
..and that makes it OK ??? (I get it, blacks can call themselves niggers - it becomes a term of endearment when they do it ;D )

not commenting in general, but to your specific example --yes, it does make it ok. So your analogy is way off.

And if they allow you to call them that, then that means you are well and truly accepted as a brother.
Got it .. now flute can be truly accepted as a Hindu !
thank you for your certificate. are you also working for Shankar Matt somewhere in Hyd and got the official mandate to declare people hindu?
nah.. i am just applying the logical process
Logged
Play with heart. Win with class. Lose with dignity

flute

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Mother India
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2008, 12:23:53 AM »

After all, I thought heck I am criticizing my own religion , introspection should be easy, people on the DG know me well enough.
..and that makes it OK ??? (I get it, blacks can call themselves niggers - it becomes a term of endearment when they do it ;D )

not commenting in general, but to your specific example --yes, it does make it ok. So your analogy is way off.

And if they allow you to call them that, then that means you are well and truly accepted as a brother.
Got it .. now flute can be truly accepted as a Hindu !
thank you for your certificate. are you also working for Shankar Matt somewhere in Hyd and got the official mandate to declare people hindu?
nah.. i am just applying the logical process
if we apply the logical process applied on me onto you, three four people will be hounding you from thread to thread writing your biographies. ;) it goes something like , why did you call him hindu? do you know what hindu means? do you respect being a hindu? do you agree with his views and are you in full agreement with the same, if not, why did you call him hindu? so the easy way out for you is, accept that you are from Shankar Matt in Hyd.
Logged
Where the mind is without fear and the head held high;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
let my country awake.

dextrous

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16,763
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #17 on: September 30, 2008, 12:57:33 AM »

After all, I thought heck I am criticizing my own religion , introspection should be easy, people on the DG know me well enough.
..and that makes it OK ??? (I get it, blacks can call themselves niggers - it becomes a term of endearment when they do it ;D )

not commenting in general, but to your specific example --yes, it does make it ok. So your analogy is way off.

And if they allow you to call them that, then that means you are well and truly accepted as a brother.
Got it .. now flute can be truly accepted as a Hindu !
thank you for your certificate. are you also working for Shankar Matt somewhere in Hyd and got the official mandate to declare people hindu?
nah.. i am just applying the logical process
if we apply the logical process applied on me onto you, three four people will be hounding you from thread to thread writing your biographies. ;) it goes something like , why did you call him hindu? do you know what hindu means? do you respect being a hindu? do you agree with his views and are you in full agreement with the same, if not, why did you call him hindu? so the easy way out for you is, accept that you are from Shankar Matt in Hyd.

Congrats on continued intellectual responses. Now, follow up your threat and don't respond!
Logged

Libran

  • Marketing Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7,614
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #18 on: September 30, 2008, 04:12:50 AM »

The only thing that differentiates this DG from the "I am also one more forum" types is that we are a set of people who can discuss other topics right from religion to terrorism to financial crisis with the same fervour as cricket... cooking,food and wine included :)

While I agree that these need to be posted in etc., my only issue is how many actually visit the etc section as often as the general discussion part.
We should be able to post them on the main page and if the admin has decided on retention for 24 hours...so be it... only confirmation required is ...24 hours from posting or 24 hours from 12 AM (Pacific, Mountain,Eastern whatever)

Logged

keep-it-cool

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,238
  • Thanda Thanda Kool Kool
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #19 on: September 30, 2008, 04:15:49 AM »

How does this thread come up in related topics here? :D :D :D

GC's soundbytes -(Revised) Batting first was wrong !!!!!!
Logged
Sachin Tendulkar gave the muhurat clap for 'Awwal Number' - that apart, he hasn't done much wrong in the last 20 yrs!

pipsqueak

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,609
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #20 on: September 30, 2008, 04:18:56 AM »

How does this thread come up in related topics here? :D :D :D

GC's soundbytes -(Revised) Batting first was wrong !!!!!!

it contains the word "revised".
Logged

WicketView

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,978
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #21 on: September 30, 2008, 04:34:03 AM »

Maybe there could be a policy of allowing non-cricket threads in the main board for as long as there are enough responses? Say if more than 5 or 10 people respond within the first 24 hours it stays ... with the number diminishing with successive time.
Of course, I would suggest this, if only such a thing can be automated ... not if someone has to keep checking all this manually. In the same breath, there are a number of ostensibly 'cricket' threads that are just started in order to start a thread. Should there be a policy regarding those?
Logged

dextrous

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16,763
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #22 on: September 30, 2008, 04:56:34 AM »

Maybe there could be a policy of allowing non-cricket threads in the main board for as long as there are enough responses? Say if more than 5 or 10 people respond within the first 24 hours it stays ... with the number diminishing with successive time.
Of course, I would suggest this, if only such a thing can be automated ... not if someone has to keep checking all this manually. In the same breath, there are a number of ostensibly 'cricket' threads that are just started in order to start a thread. Should there be a policy regarding those?

If someone is willing to quit their day job/doesn't need to work, I'd be happy to avail their services to determine which threads are 'cricket' threads that have been started to start a thread ;)

And should it be five responses of substance or five responses with the number 1 in them? Five unique perhaps?
Logged

WicketView

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,978
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #23 on: September 30, 2008, 05:09:44 AM »

Maybe there could be a policy of allowing non-cricket threads in the main board for as long as there are enough responses? Say if more than 5 or 10 people respond within the first 24 hours it stays ... with the number diminishing with successive time.
Of course, I would suggest this, if only such a thing can be automated ... not if someone has to keep checking all this manually. In the same breath, there are a number of ostensibly 'cricket' threads that are just started in order to start a thread. Should there be a policy regarding those?

If someone is willing to quit their day job/doesn't need to work, I'd be happy to avail their services to determine which threads are 'cricket' threads that have been started to start a thread ;)

And should it be five responses of substance or five responses with the number 1 in them? Five unique perhaps?
:)
Logged

keep-it-cool

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,238
  • Thanda Thanda Kool Kool
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #24 on: September 30, 2008, 08:30:27 AM »

How does this thread come up in related topics here? :D :D :D

GC's soundbytes -(Revised) Batting first was wrong !!!!!!

it contains the word "revised".

:D
Logged
Sachin Tendulkar gave the muhurat clap for 'Awwal Number' - that apart, he hasn't done much wrong in the last 20 yrs!

LosingNow

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24,294
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #25 on: September 30, 2008, 03:39:31 PM »

How does this thread come up in related topics here? :D :D :D

GC's soundbytes -(Revised) Batting first was wrong !!!!!!

it contains the word "revised".

:D
;D
must say the 'related topics' feature with its current intelligence .. is funny rather than useful
Logged
Play with heart. Win with class. Lose with dignity

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #26 on: September 30, 2008, 03:50:01 PM »

Think it should still stay. No need to get rid of it
Logged

xiexie

  • One Day Star
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 341
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #27 on: September 30, 2008, 04:06:08 PM »

Think it should still stay. No need to get rid of it

Some really bizzare links surface for most threads.
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966
Re: Revised policy on non-cricket threads
« Reply #28 on: September 30, 2008, 04:09:44 PM »

Think it should still stay. No need to get rid of it

Some really bizzare links surface for most threads.

true, but a rare few relevant ones come up. better that than nothing at all.

also, sometimes its a good pasttime visiting these old threads, now that dex (venom)   :evil4: has taken care of all the spidermans
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up