lavenderblue19

IGNORE OPTION

47 posts in this topic

:lol:

Costello: Look, you gotta pitcher on this team?

 

Abbott: Now wouldn't this be a fine team without a pitcher.

 

Costello: The pitcher's name.

 

Abbott: Tomorrow.

 

Costello: You don't wanna tell me today?

 

Here's the whole routine: Click Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like the moderator removed a post.    

 

 

Not necessarily. The poster may have removed it. On the old boards, there was some "statute of limitations" for editing posts;  24 hours, I believe. Now, it appears you can go back farther than that to edit a post.

 

OK, I was just able to edit my post from a month and a half ago in this thread.

 

Hey, this is interesting. I wonder if I can go back several years and edit posts. I can predict the results of the presidential election in 2012, who will win the World Series in 2011, etc. and look like Nostradamus.

Edited by scsu1975
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. The poster may have removed it. On the old boards, there was some "statute of limitations" for editing posts;  24 hours, I believe. Now, it appears you can go back farther than that to edit a post.

 

OK, I was just able to edit my post from a month and a half ago in this thread.

 

Hey, this is interesting. I wonder if I can go back several years and edit posts. I can predict the results of the presidential election in 2012, who will win the World Series in 2011, etc. and look like Nostradamus.

 

Yes,  I know a poster can edit their post and therefore 'remove it' by removing all the text in said post.

 

But this is what the original poster posted with regards to that:  "Because the previous post was removed just want to post that I had nothing to do with that,,,,,,".

 

Since the original poster said they had 'nothing to do with that',  I assumed 'that' was removing the post.

 

But hey,  maybe I just have a misunderstanding.    Either way,  I was surprised to see this thread rise to the top and was hoping it would go away.    Of course now I'm helping to keep it on top!    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,  I know a poster can edit their post and therefore 'remove it' by removing all the text in said post.

 

But this is what the original poster posted with regards to that:  "Because the previous post was removed just want to post that I had nothing to do with that,,,,,,".

 

Since the original poster said they had 'nothing to do with that',  I assumed 'that' was removing the post.

 

But hey,  maybe I just have a misunderstanding.    Either way,  I was surprised to see this thread rise to the top and was hoping it would go away.    Of course now I'm helping to keep it on top!    

I think you are laboring under a misdemeanor, or something like that. I assume that the party of the first part (the poster whose comment was removed) edited his/her post, and the party of the second part (the respondent) explained that he/she had nothing to do with said removal, either by magically making it disappear or contacting a moderator and saying "please remove the post posted by the party of the first part."  Hopefully, someone will keep us posted on all this.

 

We have now broken through the 1000 view mark. Let's go for 10,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are laboring under a misdemeanor, or something like that. I assume that the party of the first part (the poster whose comment was removed) edited his/her post, and the party of the second part (the respondent) explained that he/she had nothing to do with said removal, either by magically making it disappear or contacting a moderator and saying "please remove the post posted by the party of the first part."  Hopefully, someone will keep us posted on all this.

 

We have now broken through the 1000 view mark. Let's go for 10,000.

 

Like I said I could be mistaken.   Anyhow,  I think Kid had it right with his take on the Abbott and Costello routine.   Who is on first?

 

Now that I think about it the Marx brothers routine related to contracts (the party of the first part,,,),  works better here.    Wasn't that in The Cocoanuts?   

Edited by jamesjazzguitar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said I could be mistaken.   Anyhow,  I think Kid had it right with his take on the Abbott and Costello routine.   Who is on first?

 

Now that I think about it the Marx brothers routine related to contracts (the party of the first part,,,),  works better here.    Wasn't that in The Cocoanuts?   

Does the contract have a sanity clause?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said I could be mistaken.   Anyhow,  I think Kid had it right with his take on the Abbott and Costello routine.   Who is on first?

 

Now that I think about it the Marx brothers routine related to contracts (the party of the first part,,,),  works better here.    Wasn't that in The Cocoanuts?   

A Night at the Opera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the contract have a sanity clause?

You can't fool me, there ain't no sanity clause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James, you TOTALLY misunderstood my post! Rich is CORRECT. Jeez.. primo made a remark and an emoticon in response to my post. Either the moderator or primo REMOVED that post., but my moniker remained in the quote portion of my original post that she used as a quote.  I had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REMOVAL OF HER POST, or REMOVAL OF MY QUOTE. Not hard to understand. THANK YOU RICH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James, you TOTALLY misunderstood my post! Rich is CORRECT. Jeez.. primo made a remark and an emoticon in response to my post. Either the moderator or primo REMOVED that post., but my moniker remained in the quote portion of my original post that she used as a quote.  I had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REMOVAL OF HER POST, or REMOVAL OF MY QUOTE. Not hard to understand. THANK YOU RICH

 

primos removed her own post. Who knows why?

 

If a moderator had edited it, he'd have left a message to that effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

primos removed her own post. Who knows why?

 

 

My guess:

 

She suddenly got the feeling that Warren William wouldn't have approved of whatever she said there.

 

(...yep, it's kind'a like me and how I always first run everything I'm about to post past the spirit of Groucho before I hit this here "enter" button!) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess:

 

She suddenly got the feeling that Warren William wouldn't have approved of whatever she said there.

 

(...yep, it's kind'a like me and how I always first run everything I'm about to post past the spirit of Groucho before I hit this here "enter" button!) 

:wub:

 

Cute, Dargo.

 

I love the Ignore function only a little less than I love Warren William. And I love Warren William a LOT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Warren William should be forced to approve every post made here, from the beyond...even though he did treat Claudette Colbert kind of shabbily in that earlier IOL.

 

Either him or maybe Jack Oakie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:wub:

 

Cute, Dargo.

 

I love the Ignore function only a little less than I love Warren William. And I love Warren William a LOT!

I have made two big pushes for SOTM, Susan Hayward and Warren William. Apparently the Susan Hayward campaign worked. Now, let's concentrate on Warren William.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have made two big pushes for SOTM, Susan Hayward and Warren William. Apparently the Susan Hayward campaign worked. Now, let's concentrate on Warren William.

 

I agree,  Warren Williams for SOTM,   but right after George Sanders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree,  Warren Williams for SOTM,   but right after George Sanders. 

Warren William didn't commit suicide, so he gets priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Hope that's clear, in other words I'm innocent!

 

Ha! That's what they all say.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure fred why you brought this up again. I was quoted by another poster and my moniker showed in the quote. The poster who quoted me had their post removed either they did that or the mods did that but whoever deleted their post did not remove my monkier from my quote they used and their post which was deleted. What's not to understand ? So weird that you wrote that, not funny and what's your point? unless you were teasing me in a good natured way, I hope so  :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 So weird that you wrote that, not funny and what's your point? unless you were teasing me in a good natured way, I hope so  :wacko:

 

Sorry, I was just trying to be funny. Please don't blame me!!! I didn't do it to be rude!!! Aggggg..... I'm  INNOCENT!!!!!

 

 

See?

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I was just trying to be funny. Please don't blame me!!! I didn't do it to be rude!!! Aggggg..... I'm  INNOCENT!!!!!

 

 

See?

 

:)

Ha! That's what they all say.

 

:)

 

(and so the circle of life continues on).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I was just trying to be funny. Please don't blame me!!! I didn't do it to be rude!!! Aggggg..... I'm  INNOCENT!!!!!

 

 

See?

 

:)

She's saying you were a day late and a dollar short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us