CAHokie

I have no interest in those extremely suggestive covers so I can understand you not liking them. How do you feel about the way artists like Campbell, Tyndall, Horn and McTeigue draw popular female characters? They are obviously well endowed but not (usually) in provocative poses. I will admit that I like those covers, and judging by the way they sell so do a lot of others.

Is this little Jimmy??

Thats new to me. What? That Trojan makes condoms or that they don't need action shots on their website? Or you don't know what condoms are? Oh man, I sure hope he does. The thought of him procreating is truly frightening!

Pretty sure this is what Broke As A Joke was referring to. You keep grinding out that rent money, Joe. It's noble work you're doing. (thumbs u Why are you being a person_who_is_obnoxiously_self-impressed bag toward Slym? What is the deal?

No, your opinion is welcome, though it does confound me a bit. You were extremely vocal about changing the junk donkey antics. We made a change, and it is working as best as it can to prevent the past actions. Is that not what you wanted?

I agree, hence why there should never be money offered in exchange for them!

The only problem with that is I could see people basically claiming high dollar items then saying, hey here is $25 for it. It is a bit too close to buying whatever you want for $25. I have never been a fan of people posting gift cards but that is just me

The thread has been moving nicely. The new rules seem to have had a positive effect.

- people offer books for free to the participants in the thread (first to claim gets them). There are no fixed rules about the value of what is offered - the person who claims then has to put up their own offer - in the past, some very generous offers have been claimed, with the boardie who claimed them following up with junk books (hence "junk donkey"). - this caused lots of resentment. Several people became disillusioned and stopped participating in the thread. - (very) recently, the thread rules were changed to try to mitigate this problem. 10 people voted against the rule change - the inference being that these are the "junk donkeys" who will now be prevented from scooping up the good offers and not reciprocating appropriately. Well done Belham!

You choose a book or other stuff, then offer something in return for the next guy. Where would you want it to go from there? I mean you can make really good friends there but I am not for sure what else you would expect. No

No one asked you to care. You are either a participant in it or you are not.

I am pretty sure I know who four of them are but the identity of the other 6 allude me.

In case you are being serious, it is a slang term for people in the PIF Thread..... If you don't know where the PIF thread is, it is located Here

I loved it. A lot of character development and a hint the entire time that one or both of them were going to get killed then neither did.

Yeah, post counts are meaningless as a standalone requirement for anything.

He is getting his post count up so that he claim a thread from PIF Joined 1/5/2014.....made 4 posts prior to finding the PIF thread yesterday....then made 22 posts today. I see nothing to back your statement up!

He is getting his post count up so that he claim a thread from PIF

I don't blame Arch at all on this one. Why risk this board to any sort of liability when they do not benefit from it in the first place.

Is the mystery box sales the same as a raffle though? Legally speaking I mean.

So is the rule retroactive and he has to get rid of his current thread or did it already go poof?

So if the -script is awesome, they could cast Miley Cyrus as Sue Storm and Justin Beiber as Johnny. Is that exactly what you understood from my post? No, not at all. I was intentionally being silly, but honestly I think the -script and actors chosen are equally important. One can not succeed without the other.

So if the -script is awesome, they could cast Miley Cyrus as Sue Storm and Justin Beiber as Johnny.

I am just not seeing it.

+1 I have agreed with this for a long time. People sometimes do things that are just wrong and may not be related to an actual transaction. There should be a place to document and warn about that.

I tend to agree. Let me point out the similarity between this situation and the situation back in August when manicnerd wanted to nominate someone to the PL for not shipping an item from the PIF thread (this post will get you back in the vicinity of that discussion: CLICK ) . There was a heated debate about whether that situation would qualify for the PL, based on technical definitions of the word "transaction", etc. There was so much flak, manicnerd wound up dropping the whole PL nomination idea. So, if jop gets nominated, let's just remember it the next time someone wants to nominate someone from the PIF context...we need to have consistency. Perhaps we need to revisit the discussion of setting up separate PL "sub-sections" or something for failure to deliver on things like PIF/Secret Santa/raffle situations...there seemingly wasn't enough push to see it through to implementation during the last discussion. You are absolutely right Edowen. I actually brought this up somewhere yesterday and pm'd Lance about this past incident and the outcome. I think the two scenarios are almost exactly the same but curious if it is viewed different because it is a Christmas raffle and not junk donkeys swapping trash. If Jop is going through problems I really would not want him to get PL over it, but then again from a skeptical point of view, why would he be buying books then? I dunno...