Originally posted by Santa DrummerFind a post where I complain about non-subs.
Why are people so intersted in getting recs? They make topics just to get recs eg complaining about non subs. I dont really mind about recs... So why are they always wanting recs while spamming the forums? C mon tell us Xanthos/Bowmann!
Originally posted by sjegD'oh!!! you were so close, you picked the wrong one.
It's either [b]Timmy...
Or alliteration...
Hmm... No, I'm going to say Timmy, Bob.
What did I win?[/b]
For correct answer I would have given you 100 recs! to bad they are now classified as "pointless" or worthless by some guy who plays drums and likes to dress up like santa and prey on the young.
Originally posted by PocketKingsIs it too late to say alliteration?
D'oh!!! you were so close, you picked the wrong one.
For correct answer I would have given you 100 recs! to bad they are now classified as "pointless" or worthless by some guy who plays drums and likes to dress up like santa and prey on the young.
Funny- I could have sworn it was Timmy. Ok, point taken. I'll fetch my coat.
I would say that total recs are a bit pointless because it all depends really on the total number of posts that the user has written.
I would say that where recs are useful is when browsing the "Recommended" link. Where individual posts have a large number of recs hence being the most interesting to read.
Originally posted by BowmannIf you take my rating (1542) and divide by the number of recs I have (604) you get 2.56 rating points per rec.
Agreed. This space could be used for something a little more informative, such as Player's Rating.
In 1990 Dave Stewart had a 2.56 ERA for the Oakland Athletics. Spooky, isn't it?
Originally posted by rwingettCurtis Joseph, in his first year as Goaltender for the Toronto Maple Leafs ('98-'99) had a GAA of 2.56.
If you take my rating (1542) and divide by the number of recs I have (604) you get 2.56 rating points per rec.
In 1990 Dave Stewart had a 2.56 ERA for the Oakland Athletics. Spooky, isn't it?