Preliminary LOLQs for the Year of 2003!

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Sam Hughes, Jan 1, 2004.

  1. Sam Hughes

    Sam Hughes Guest

    LOLQs for the year of 2003

    What does LOLQ mean? I means your Lack of Life Quotient, which is
    calculated by counting the number of posts in alt.html which you have
    made over a certain time period (in this case, a year), multiplying that
    number by seven, and then dividing it by the number of days in a week.

    If your name is not on the list, then complain, and I'll add your name.
    (And then I'll post a finalized list, maybe alphabetic order as well as
    numerical.)

    Those names which _are_ on the list were put there because (a) I saw them
    (b) they were on last year's list, or (c) they are just posters that you
    remember. This list does not contain the "top N posters;" it contains
    LOLQs of the posters that I noticed. It might be skewed more towards
    posters who posted a lot late in the year.

    brucie 1310 (the bringer of LOLQs to alt.html)
    David Dorward 1290
    Sid Ismail 1200
    Whitecrest 1190
    rf 1170 (Hopefully this matched only rf and nobody
    by the name of "Smurf," "Perf," etc.)
    Tony A Inkster 1140
    William Tasso 860
    Jacqui or (maybe) Pete 848
    Jukka K. Korpela 840
    Isofarro 798
    Hywel Jenkins 695
    Steve Pugh 662
    Nico Schuyt 577
    Mark Parnell 517
    Leif K-Brooks 498
    DU 480
    PeterMcC 445
    Headless 374
    Dylan Parry 362 (a.k.a. "Webpage Workshop")
    Adrienne 324
    Luigi Donatello Asero 280
    semi 276
    Kris 273
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty 258
    EightNineThree 239
    Richard 203 (I subtracted matches for "Richard Clark,"
    "Richard Rundle," and "Richard Cornford")
    nice.guy.nige 200
    David Graham 193
    Lauri Raittila 188
    kayodeok 176
    Geoff Ball 176
    Michael Wilcox 156
    Tina - AffordableHOST.com 153
    Duende 152
    Nicolai P. Zwar 143
    Nick Theodorakis 131
    Denise Enck 130
    Sam Hughes 126
    Steve R. 125 (Including 6 posts with "Sreve R.")
    SteW 114
    Michael Weber 109
    Davmagic .Com 95
    Chris Leonard 93
    Mr. x 88

    Notables on last year's preliminary list and their LOLQs:

    Last This
    Bodidily 231 0 ! !
    Brucie 1790 1310 :)
    Chip C 771 14 ! !
    David Dorward 1280 1290 :)
    David Venn-Brown 302 42 !
    Eric B. Bednarz 390 75 !
    Geoff Ball 449 176 !
    Hywel Jenkins 1020 695 :)
    Isofarro 978 798 :)
    Jacqui or (maybe) Pete 113 848 :)
    Jerry Muelver 840 54 ! ! !
    Jukka K. Korpela 1100 840 :)
    Kae Verens 1020 35 ! ! !
    Kris 802 273 !
    Neredbojias 2150 0 ! ! ! ! !
    Phil Hayes 226 0 <- Is this correct?
    rf 1250 1170 :)
    Sam Hughes 792 126 D-:
    Sid Ismail 1070 1200 :)
    Spooky Guy Next Door 316 0 (a.k.a. Mark Gallagher)
    The Roving Reporter 290 0 !
    viza 443 25 ! !
    Voetleuce 498 59 ! !
    Whitecrest 146 1190 :-D
    William Tasso 64 860 :-D
    Sam Hughes, Jan 1, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sam Hughes

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:Xns9463AD6641CB5samreid@130.81.64.196>
    Sam Hughes said:

    > brucie 1310


    google doesn't archive my posts since about may.

    > Phil Hayes 226 0 <- Is this correct?


    2 that i know of

    --
    brucie
    02/January/2004 08:07:45 am kilo
    brucie, Jan 1, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sam Hughes

    kayodeok Guest

    kayodeok, Jan 1, 2004
    #3
  4. Sam Hughes

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:Xns9463E517E9A82news4kayode@130.133.1.4>
    kayodeok said:

    >> google doesn't archive my posts since about may.


    > So you made 1310 posts between January to May 2003? That can't be
    > right!


    it sounds about right.

    > (On reflection, this works out as 9 posts per day between January and
    > May which is admittedly reasonable).


    i'm going to tell my mommy you're picking on me!

    --
    brucie
    02/January/2004 08:34:23 am kilo
    brucie, Jan 1, 2004
    #4
  5. On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 08:11:45 +1000, brucie
    <> wrote:

    >in post <news:Xns9463AD6641CB5samreid@130.81.64.196>
    >Sam Hughes said:
    >
    >> brucie 1310

    >
    >google doesn't archive my posts since about may.
    >


    That's because of the X-No-Archive: yes in your headers.

    Nick

    --
    Nick Theodorakis

    nicholas_theodorakis [at] urmc [dot] rochester [dot] edu
    Nick Theodorakis, Jan 1, 2004
    #5
  6. Sam Hughes

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:>
    Nick Theodorakis said:

    >>google doesn't archive my posts since about may.


    > That's because of the X-No-Archive: yes in your headers.


    really? i would never have guessed.


    --
    brucie
    02/January/2004 09:54:48 am kilo
    brucie, Jan 1, 2004
    #6
  7. On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:55:11 +1000, brucie
    <> wrote:

    >in post <news:>
    >Nick Theodorakis said:
    >
    >>>google doesn't archive my posts since about may.

    >
    >> That's because of the X-No-Archive: yes in your headers.

    >
    >really? i would never have guessed.
    >


    Yah, it should have been called "X-No-Archive: yes. I mean no. Wait,
    I mean yes..." Or maybe even "X--Yes-Archive: no"

    Happy New Year.

    Nick

    --
    Nick Theodorakis

    nicholas_theodorakis [at] urmc [dot] rochester [dot] edu
    Nick Theodorakis, Jan 2, 2004
    #7
  8. Sam Hughes

    Guest

    On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 22:02:27 GMT, Sam Hughes <> wrote:
    >What does LOLQ mean? I means your Lack of Life Quotient, which is
    >calculated by counting the number of posts in alt.html which you have
    >made over a certain time period (in this case, a year), multiplying that
    >number by seven, and then dividing it by the number of days in a week.


    Since you are multiplying by 7 and then dividing by the number of days in a
    week, does that mean that the number of days in a week is not 7?


    >If your name is not on the list, then complain, and I'll add your name.
    >(And then I'll post a finalized list, maybe alphabetic order as well as
    >numerical.)
    >
    >Those names which _are_ on the list were put there because (a) I saw them
    >(b) they were on last year's list, or (c) they are just posters that you
    >remember. This list does not contain the "top N posters;" it contains
    >LOLQs of the posters that I noticed. It might be skewed more towards
    >posters who posted a lot late in the year.


    I thought I had become a regular in this newsgroup over the last few weeks; I
    guess that's not the case! Looks like I'll have to ask more questions about
    CSS and DOM inconsistencies across various browsers. ;-)


    >brucie 1310 (the bringer of LOLQs to alt.html)

    <snippage>
    >Mr. x 88


    I just missed the cut:

    delerious 82
    , Jan 2, 2004
    #8
  9. While the city slept, Sam Hughes <> feverishly typed:

    > LOLQs for the year of 2003

    [...]
    > nice.guy.nige 200


    Dang! Looks like I've gone and got a life! :-( Sorry. Will try and do better
    this year...

    Cheers,
    Nige

    --
    Nigel Moss.

    Email address is not valid. . Take the dog out!
    http://www.nigenet.org.uk | Boycott E$$O!! http://www.stopesso.com
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is very, very busy!
    nice.guy.nige, Jan 2, 2004
    #9
  10. Sam Hughes

    PeterMcC Guest

    nice.guy.nige wrote:
    > While the city slept, Sam Hughes <> feverishly typed:
    >
    >> LOLQs for the year of 2003

    > [...]
    >> nice.guy.nige 200

    >
    > Dang! Looks like I've gone and got a life! :-( Sorry. Will try and do
    > better this year...


    In that case, can I have yours?

    --
    PeterMcC
    If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
    inappropriate or offensive in any way,
    please ignore it and accept my apologies.
    PeterMcC, Jan 2, 2004
    #10
  11. While the city slept, PeterMcC <> feverishly typed:

    > nice.guy.nige wrote:
    >> While the city slept, Sam Hughes <> feverishly typed:
    >>
    >>> LOLQs for the year of 2003

    >> [...]
    >>> nice.guy.nige 200

    >>
    >> Dang! Looks like I've gone and got a life! :-( Sorry. Will try and do
    >> better this year...

    >
    > In that case, can I have yours?


    Trust me. You wouldn't want it! ;-)

    Cheers,
    Nige

    --
    Nigel Moss.

    Email address is not valid. . Take the dog out!
    http://www.nigenet.org.uk | Boycott E$$O!! http://www.stopesso.com
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is very, very busy!
    nice.guy.nige, Jan 2, 2004
    #11
  12. brucie <> wrote:

    >>>google doesn't archive my posts since about may.

    >
    >> That's because of the X-No-Archive: yes in your headers.

    >
    > really? i would never have guessed.


    So, in effect, what looked like your hostility towards Google
    archiving, and hence towards all people who might benefit from it,
    is in fact a result of your attempt to reduce your recorded LOL value.

    I think I understand the psychology behind that, but maybe this implies
    that we need to collect information for LOL calculations on a different
    basis. If we just threaten to do that, will it convince you to be a
    good boy and stop X-No-Archiving?

    X-No-Archive is bad. Don't do X-No-Archive, mm'kay?

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
    Jukka K. Korpela, Jan 2, 2004
    #12
  13. Sam Hughes

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:Xns94652E26678Bjkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31>
    Jukka K. Korpela said:

    >>>>google doesn't archive my posts since about may.
    >>> That's because of the X-No-Archive: yes in your headers.


    > So, in effect, what looked like your hostility towards Google
    > archiving,


    nothing i babble is worth archiving so google saves valuable resources
    by not archiving me.

    > and hence towards all people who might benefit from it,


    my babble doesn't benefit anyone

    > is in fact a result of your attempt to reduce your recorded LOL value.


    i hadn't actually considered that, its a good point.

    > X-No-Archive is bad. Don't do X-No-Archive, mm'kay?


    ummm...... no

    --
    brucie
    03/January/2004 08:32:31 am kilo
    brucie, Jan 2, 2004
    #13
  14. Sam Hughes

    Lois Guest

    brucie pretended to think out loud:
    : nothing i babble is worth archiving so google saves valuable resources
    : by not archiving me.

    : my babble doesn't benefit anyone

    They say you know more than anyone around here, so you've just put down
    everyone else.

    I see we're wasting our time looking in the archives for your previous
    responses to our questions. Google will have to archive the same questions
    again and again and you -- being the warm and fuzzy type you are -- will
    probably go through the work of helping newbies and oldies yet again.
    According to you, though, we can all stop following the links you provide
    and trying out the options you take time to work out for us. Oh well. You
    always know best.

    I can only guess at your reasons for not letting your posts be archived. I
    think it's because you're looking for more opportunities to earn karma
    credits. If I can help you do that, I'm glad to help by being helped.

    Lois
    Lois, Jan 3, 2004
    #14
  15. Lois wrote:
    > brucie pretended to think out loud:
    > : nothing i babble is worth archiving so google saves valuable resources
    > : by not archiving me.
    >
    > : my babble doesn't benefit anyone
    >
    > They say you know more than anyone around here, so you've just put down
    > everyone else.


    <snip>

    Paranoia is a damned good survival trait, you know.
    JustAnotherGuy, Jan 3, 2004
    #15
  16. Sam Hughes

    Duende Guest

    While sitting in a puddle Lois scribbled in the mud:

    > brucie pretended to think out loud:
    >: nothing i babble is worth archiving so google saves valuable
    >: resources by not archiving me.
    >
    >: my babble doesn't benefit anyone
    >
    > They say you know more than anyone around here, so you've just put
    > down everyone else.
    >
    > I see we're wasting our time looking in the archives for your previous
    > responses to our questions. Google will have to archive the same
    > questions again and again and you -- being the warm and fuzzy type you
    > are -- will probably go through the work of helping newbies and oldies
    > yet again. According to you, though, we can all stop following the
    > links you provide and trying out the options you take time to work out
    > for us. Oh well. You always know best.
    >
    > I can only guess at your reasons for not letting your posts be
    > archived. I think it's because you're looking for more opportunities
    > to earn karma credits. If I can help you do that, I'm glad to help by
    > being helped.
    >

    Your wasteing your time trying to figure out brucie. Humans don't
    understand his species.



    --
    Duende
    The best defense against logic is ignorance.
    Duende, Jan 3, 2004
    #16
  17. Sam Hughes

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:JqqJb.42$>
    Lois said:

    >: my babble doesn't benefit anyone


    > They say you know more than anyone around here,


    "they" are completely and totally wrong.

    > so you've just put down everyone else.


    if "they" are stupid enough to believe i know shit then "they" deserve
    it. i would also recommend a good smack in the head.

    > I can only guess at your reasons for not letting your posts be archived.


    there appears to be something wrong with your brain. i clearly stated
    why earlier in the thread.


    --
    brucie
    03/January/2004 03:42:28 pm kilo
    brucie, Jan 3, 2004
    #17
  18. brucie wrote:
    > in post <news:JqqJb.42$>
    > Lois said:
    >
    >>> my babble doesn't benefit anyone

    >
    >> They say you know more than anyone around here,

    >
    > "they" are completely and totally wrong.
    >
    >> so you've just put down everyone else.

    >
    > if "they" are stupid enough to believe i know shit then "they" deserve
    > it. i would also recommend a good smack in the head.
    >


    form an orderly queue please folk.

    --
    William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com
    William Tasso, Jan 3, 2004
    #18
  19. Toby A Inkster, Jan 3, 2004
    #19
  20. In article <JqqJb.42$>,
    "Lois" <> wrote:

    > I see we're wasting our time looking in the archives for your previous
    > responses to our questions.


    Not having the archives to peruse while brucie has gone walkabout
    makes it sooo much more exciting when he returns...!

    Audry

    --
    tawdry glamour who is at smile global dot com
    T. Audry Glamour, Jan 3, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Otuatail

    Week of year to full Year

    Otuatail, Dec 8, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    956
    Toby A Inkster
    Dec 8, 2003
  2. Brian Quinlan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    380
    Brian Quinlan
    Jun 25, 2004
  3. Michael Chermside

    ConfigParser shootout, preliminary entry

    Michael Chermside, Oct 17, 2004, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    496
    WakeBdr
    Oct 20, 2004
  4. Carlos Ribeiro
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    479
    Carlos Ribeiro
    Oct 21, 2004
  5. Veerle
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    396
    niceguy
    Aug 20, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page