Posting stats

[DrSpike]

Where is it in the FAQ?

[Qilue]

Oh fine, I'll stop posting.

Are you all happy now?

[DrSpike]

Well not really. Perhaps you could keep posting but check the accuracy of your posts beforehand?

[Skanky Burns]

She did include search in that post which would find information regarding post stats, so her statement is accurate.
Stop your whinging, Spikie.

[DrSpike]

Not really, because there were 2 statements, only 1 of which was correct. It was the other I commented upon.

[Skanky Burns]

It was a compound statement. One statement, two parts. The statement as a whole was correct.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by DrSpike
The Civ2 manual has many many errors and omissions (and not just of technical stuff) and also includes some things that didn't make the final game.

Whereas the Civ3 Manual may have been accurate, but when you don't say anything that's any help that doesn't make much difference really, does it?

Oh if only there was a Strat guide out there to buy (or get free) that hd all the formulae, all the bugs, all the considerations...

And yes I KNOW that's what the Strat forum is for. I want Hard copy! And easy to find hard copy too.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
It was a compound statement. One statement, two parts. The statement as a whole was correct.

Please don't be awkwards Burns. If you post to say that you are seemingly one of the few that reads the FAQ, and the FAQ contains no information on the issue at hand, then you can be sure that some awkward git (ie me on this occasion ) will point out that it's irrelevant whether you read the FAQ or not, because no info is there.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt

Whereas the Civ3 Manual may have been accurate, but when you don't say anything that's any help that doesn't make much difference really, does it?

Hehe, true enough.

[Snowflake]

Oh come on Spikie, she said that some "actually read forum faqs and utilise the link labeled search" and others don't. And the ones who raised the question at hand obviously belong to the latter group. What is so wrong about that?

[ixnay]

July 28

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt


Whereas the Civ3 Manual may have been accurate, but when you don't say anything that's any help that doesn't make much difference really, does it?

Except the CivIII manual isn't accurate.

[Skanky Burns]

Within context it makes sense. Taken out of context (as you have done) is the only time that statement is irrelevant. But I have made my point, and this is the last I will say on the topic. I'll let you have the last word (you stubborn taurus bastard ).

[DrSpike]

In a homage to you, my last comment is:

Wait for it:

[joncha]

updated to TheArsenal

June 9 GhengisFarb
June 14 Arnelos
June 16 Spiffor
June 18 Nikolai
June 19 Kassiopeia
June 24 Ming
June 25 duke o' york
June 27 RMS (hi, pick again panag, have a nice day )
June 31 Last Conformist

July 1 ADG
July 2 Tehben
July 4 lord of the mark
July 5 Paddy the Scot
July 7 Ben Kenobi
July 9 Unspeakable Horror
July 10 Stuie
July 11 GeoModder
July 12 Solver
July 13 Drogue
July 14 Maniac
July 15 joncha
July 16 TheArsenal
July 17 Jonny
July 18 Chaunk
July 19 Trip
July 20 Jamski
July 21 Nuclear Master
July 22 Bloody Monk
July 23 civman2000
July 24 obstructor
July 25 Qilue
July 26 Shogun Gunner
July 27 DarkCloud
July 28 ixnay
July 29 CyberShy
July 30 Tiamat

Aug 1 Urban Ranger
Aug 2 alva
Aug 4 rah
Aug 8 Sparrowhawk
Aug 10 mrmitchell
Aug 13 Jeje2
Aug 14 Krill
Aug 17 Gramphos
Aug 20 Hueij
Aug 23 HongHu
Aug 24 Skanky Burns
Aug 25 Potassium
Aug 30 MrWhereItsAt

Sept 2 DrSpike
Sept 6 Zopperoni
Sept 10 Skywalker
Sept 11 Uber KruX
Sept 16 Tuberski
Sept 19 Chilean President