Preliminary LOLQs for the Year of 2003!

[Sam Hughes]

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

 

[brucie]

brucie 1310

google doesn't archive my posts since about may.

Phil Hayes 226 0 <- Is this correct?

2 that i know of

 

[kayodeok]

google doesn't archive my posts since about may.

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

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

 

[brucie]

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!

 

[Nick Theodorakis]

google doesn't archive my posts since about may.

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

Nick

 

[brucie]

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

really? i would never have guessed.

 

[Nick Theodorakis]

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

 

[delerious]

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)

Mr. x 88

I just missed the cut:

delerious 82

 

[nice.guy.nige]

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. (e-mail address removed). 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!

 

[PeterMcC]

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?

 

[nice.guy.nige]

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. (e-mail address removed). 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!

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

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?

 

[brucie]

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

 

[Lois]

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

 

[JustAnotherGuy]

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.

 

[Duende]

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.

 

[brucie]

: 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.

 

[William Tasso]

"they" are completely and totally wrong.


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.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

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

"X-Archive: no" is less silly.

 

[T. Audry Glamour]

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