|
Post by Captain PostALot on Nov 3, 2005 18:22:32 GMT 10
There certainly wasnt an age or time limit for Tim.
|
|
|
Post by social worker on Nov 3, 2005 18:58:29 GMT 10
children don't fight, you're all equal losers
|
|
|
Post by nat on Nov 3, 2005 19:00:07 GMT 10
Shut up Fiona.
|
|
|
Post by social worker v20 on Nov 3, 2005 19:05:54 GMT 10
And besides, this is about bagging Jake, lets keep on the ball...
|
|
|
Post by nat on Nov 3, 2005 19:13:44 GMT 10
Can we devote a new shrine to 'Crappy Adjudications' in general? That way, whilst Jake may appear more frequently than most, other people are also victimised?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Crocodile on Nov 3, 2005 20:00:36 GMT 10
hang on, i thought the point of all this was to bag Sashi??
if we're bagging Jake, I think we should not miss the original point of this part of the forum: to bag sashi..
so lets bag em both i say.
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Nov 4, 2005 9:30:31 GMT 10
Actually there was a time limit on me, its called a cap and it meant that I could only do 5 australs (and i never even used my last Worlds spot).
So Nat you can have as much time as you like, but you only get 5 shots at australs.
|
|
|
Post by Tsk tsk tsk on Nov 4, 2005 13:09:05 GMT 10
c'mon tim - pick on someone your own... well, age.
|
|
|
Post by kylie on Nov 4, 2005 13:50:46 GMT 10
I'm all for Nat being ambitious! and on the subject of that last worlds, Tim - why did you never use it? You've always preferred to debate than adjudicate
|
|
|
Post by Old Man Sashi on Nov 4, 2005 14:47:44 GMT 10
all power to you nat.
does anyone else find the number of guests on this forum annoying? or should i say guest, given its the same person all the time i.e. a certain member of the military.
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Nov 4, 2005 15:06:17 GMT 10
Well i disagree that i've always prefered to debate, i've gone through quite distinct phases, of mostly adjudicating, then mostly debating and now mostly adjudicating. i think thats a good idea, it gives you a wider perspective and a chance to perv on the hot new debaters (and occassionally date one of them ;D). i didn't use my last worlds because i expected to still be studying (or at least not working full time) this year and i figured i would be stronger if i waited, learned a little more, honed my skills a little more, etc, etc.... as would any perspective partner i would be debating with. Nothing terribly bizzare about that i don't think... generally people have seen their last year at uni as their best chance to do well/win an IV. I'm not different or unique in that respect. and frankly, after making the GF i really wasn't sure i wanted to go through it all again when the chances were likely that i would only achieve something less than i had already done, whereas adjudicating offered new challenges and opportunities. i'm not even sure why this is at all interesting to anyone, but since Kylie asked i'm happy to answer as for Staggy, i mean Tsk Tsk's suggestion of picking on someone my own age... well actually i'm not picking on Nat, i'd love to see her win 4 australs, hell i'd love to see her win 5, i just didn't want to put too much pressure on the poor girl! It would certainly be nice to see some post-Sonnreich-era champions in MAD
|
|
|
Post by Staggy on Nov 4, 2005 16:08:32 GMT 10
Tsk Tsk wasnt me!
I would own up if it was though, because it was a moderately funny comment.
There are obviously other lurkers about.....
|
|
|
Post by Old Man Sashi on Nov 4, 2005 18:36:40 GMT 10
staggy, you're a bad liar mate.
|
|
|
Post by Staggy This Time on Nov 4, 2005 18:39:06 GMT 10
Check the ISP if you like, You're a mod.
I am not denying that im a lurker, but there is tons of lurker activity around that it nothing to do with me. Although i wish i had come up with most of it, i appreciate a good anonymous joke.
|
|
|
Post by Staggy on Nov 4, 2005 18:41:20 GMT 10
Sashi, it should also be noted that at 1.09 today (when that tsk tsk thing was posted), i was sitting in an exam room (30mins reading time, 3.5 hours writing time). If that aint an alibi then i dont know what is.
So there. Na Na Na, Na Na Na. Na.
|
|