You have elected to not receive the phonebook your are receiving



  •  



  •  Dear Heffy,


    Fuck you.

    We don't really give a shit.

     

    Kisses,
    AT&T



  • Clearly it's more "green" this way..



  • I like the way they give you the link for their environmental message (is it five pages long? Why couldn't they just print it on the same piece of paper?). I can only assume* that it runs along the lines of "We don't care about the environment, so we're going to give you a phone book whether you want one or not."

    * because I can't be bothered typing it in



  • Maybe the people\person delivering it is an idiot.

    I know here that Sensis subcontract it out (to almost anyone apparently, a local primary school did them back home) to deliver phone books.



  • @Douglasac said:

    Maybe the people\person delivering it is an idiot.

    I know here that Sensis subcontract it out (to almost anyone apparently, a local primary school did them back home) to deliver phone books.

    I can see how it took you almost an entire month to draft that brilliant reply.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Douglasac said:
    Maybe the people\person delivering it is an idiot.

     

    I know here that Sensis subcontract it out (to almost anyone apparently, a local primary school did them back home) to deliver phone books.

    I can see how it took you almost an entire month to draft that brilliant reply.

    Maybe he was travelling really fast



  • Anything on the first page is Fair Game™, I reckon!



  • I don't want this to be The Thread That Never Ends, but after a recent telephone book experience involving my neighbor . . . could this be a case of a neighbor/friend/enemy/boss/cow-orker/stranger/elf/fairy/gremlin pulling a practical joke and leaving a spare or unwanted set of telephone books at the house of someone who received the hang tag?



  • @Zemm said:

    Anything on the first page is Fair Game™, I reckon!
    I've always believed that any everything is "fair game"  If you aren't supposed to reply to anything older than [some arbitrary number] then why does it exist?  Why isn't it automatically deleted after [some arbitrary number of days]?

     



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @Zemm said:

    Anything on the first page is Fair Game™, I reckon!
    I've always believed that any everything is "fair game"  If you aren't supposed to reply to anything older than [some arbitrary number] then why does it exist?  Why isn't it automatically deleted after [some arbitrary number of days]?

     

    Deleting it would be wrong; nobody could read it again. However, I wish CS had a feature to archive (i.e. lock) threads older than, say, 3 months. Don't be silly; you know there's a difference between etiquette and what is technically possible.

    There is no hard-and-fast rule on thread rezzing, but I can tell you this much: 90% of the time a thread older than 2 months is rezzed, it's somebody posting: 1) "Yeah, I hate it when people do X"; 2) a "solution" that has already been offered several times in the replies--it's obvious the rezzer didn't read any of the original replies and just replied directly to the OP; 3) somebody trying to start an argument with someone over a dead topic or with a forum member who doesn't even post any more.

    It should be obvious why rezzing old threads is rude: it bumps them to the top of the forum. Also, some threads would never fucking die because some random jackass would come in every 3 months to post a "RTFM n00b" style comment (or to argue religion or politics or God-knows-what). Once a thread has sat for a month or two, it's obvious that all original participants have moved on and having someone dredge up the corpse of the thread just to restart the whole conversation is disorienting and annoying.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @Zemm said:

    Anything on the first page is Fair Game™, I reckon!
    I've always believed that any everything is "fair game"  If you aren't supposed to reply to anything older than [some arbitrary number] then why does it exist?  Why isn't it automatically deleted after [some arbitrary number of days]?

     

    Deleting it would be wrong; nobody could read it again. However, I wish CS had a feature to archive (i.e. lock) threads older than, say, 3 months. Don't be silly; you know there's a difference between etiquette and what is technically possible.

    There is no hard-and-fast rule on thread rezzing, but I can tell you this much: 90% of the time a thread older than 2 months is rezzed, it's somebody posting: 1) "Yeah, I hate it when people do X"; 2) a "solution" that has already been offered several times in the replies--it's obvious the rezzer didn't read any of the original replies and just replied directly to the OP; 3) somebody trying to start an argument with someone over a dead topic or with a forum member who doesn't even post any more.

    It should be obvious why rezzing old threads is rude: it bumps them to the top of the forum. Also, some threads would never fucking die because some random jackass would come in every 3 months to post a "RTFM n00b" style comment (or to argue religion or politics or God-knows-what). Once a thread has sat for a month or two, it's obvious that all original participants have moved on and having someone dredge up the corpse of the thread just to restart the whole conversation is disorienting and annoying.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    However, I wish CS had a feature to archive (i.e. lock) threads older than, say, 3 months.

    I did this for one forum with a bit of SQL in a cronjob (>28 days' inactivity -> locked) since there was no admin/mod tool providing such functionality.

    No reason why it can't be done here.



  • @Cassidy said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    However, I wish CS had a feature to archive (i.e. lock) threads older than, say, 3 months.

    I did this for one forum with a bit of SQL in a cronjob (>28 days' inactivity -> locked) since there was no admin/mod tool providing such functionality.

    No reason why it can't be done here.

     

    Oh yes there is, it's called Community Server.



  • @DescentJS said:

    @Cassidy said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    However, I wish CS had a feature to archive (i.e. lock) threads older than, say, 3 months.

    I did this for one forum with a bit of SQL in a cronjob (>28 days' inactivity -> locked) since there was no admin/mod tool providing such functionality.

    No reason why it can't be done here.

     

    Oh yes there is, it's called Community Server.

    I bet with CS it would take 28 days just to find the place in the DB schema where threads are marked as "locked".



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @DescentJS said:

    @Cassidy said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    However, I wish CS had a feature to archive (i.e. lock) threads older than, say, 3 months.

    I did this for one forum with a bit of SQL in a cronjob (>28 days' inactivity -> locked) since there was no admin/mod tool providing such functionality.

    No reason why it can't be done here.

     

    Oh yes there is, it's called Community Server.

    I bet with CS it would take 28 days just to find the place in the DB schema where threads are marked as "locked".

     

    As if there would be only one place marked locked.  There's probably 5 different places that are used based on thread hash value/phase of moon/number of words in thread.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    There is no hard-and-fast rule on thread rezzing, but I can tell you this much: 90% of the time a thread older than 2 months is rezzed, it's somebody posting: 1) "Yeah, I hate it when people do X"; 2) a "solution" that has already been offered several times in the replies--it's obvious the rezzer didn't read any of the original replies and just replied directly to the OP; 3) somebody trying to start an argument with someone over a dead topic or with a forum member who doesn't even post any more.

    You forgot "rezzed by a spambot, then replied to by forum members after the spam post is deleted under the impression that it's a new thread". Of course, that's partly CS's fault for not resetting the "last updated" time and/or "new posts" indicator when the latest post in the thread is deleted.



  • @Scarlet Manuka said:

    that's partly CS's fault for not resetting the "last updated" time and/or "new posts" indicator when the latest post in the thread is deleted.
     

    It does this, but there remains a window of opportunity for unwitting necromancers to formulate their dark designs.



  • @DescentJS said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    @DescentJS said:

    @Cassidy said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    However, I wish CS had a feature to archive (i.e. lock) threads older than, say, 3 months.

    I did this for one forum with a bit of SQL in a cronjob (>28 days' inactivity -> locked) since there was no admin/mod tool providing such functionality.

    No reason why it can't be done here.

     

    Oh yes there is, it's called Community Server.

    I bet with CS it would take 28 days just to find the place in the DB schema where threads are marked as "locked".

     

    As if there would be only one place marked locked.  There's probably 5 different places that are used based on thread hash value/phase of moon/number of words in thread.

    <clarity>

    Okay.. no reason it can't be done, but the way in which CS is designed and the convoluted DB schema means it won't be done anytime soon...

    </clarity>

    Happy now,  pedantic dickweeds? Gah!



  • @Cassidy said:

    Happy now, pedantic dickweeds? Gah!

    No, being a pedantic dickweed makes me unhappy. That's why I use the term "pedantic dickweed" and not, say, "pedantic provider of holy wisdom".



  • @blakeyrat said:

    No, being a pedantic dickweed makes me unhappy.

    Then stop being one. Simples!


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.