Page 1 of 3
So I was on AIOWiki. . .
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:50 pm
by Marvin D.
. . .and I was reading about the ToO, and I realized I'm on the top 10 posting list (something I wanted to be on when I had like, 100 posts
), and I'm the number 7 poster (it says 8, but I have more than K1, so. . .)
Yes. I felt like saying that
Re: So I was on AIOWiki. . .
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:53 pm
by Whitty Whit
O.o Feel like bragging today, Josh?
Re: So I was on AIOWiki. . .
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:20 pm
by Marvin D.
No, I feel like letting everybody know the fruit of my countless posts =P
Re: So I was on AIOWiki. . .
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:53 pm
by bookworm
I was on AIOWiki and noticed that
our page wrote:The ToO has roots going back about a decade
should say two decades now.
Re: So I was on AIOWiki. . .
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:33 pm
by Termite
Grammar alert: 'about' is not to be used in accordance with time relevance.
Re: So I was on AIOWiki. . .
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:15 pm
by DanP740
bookworm wrote:I was on AIOWiki and noticed that
our page wrote:The ToO has roots going back about a decade
should say two decades now.
No, it's still right the way it is. If the ToO had roots going back to 1991, two decades would be correct, but it's closer to one decade still. What if I changed it to "over a decade"?
Re: So I was on AIOWiki. . .
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:38 pm
by SoccerLOTR
Wow, yeah, definitely not quite that old! "over a decade" sounds better...
Re: So I was on AIOWiki. . .
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:27 pm
by bookworm
Oh yes, I didn’t notice the modifier ‘late’ 1990s. The new wording is much better.
Re: So I was on AIOWiki. . .
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:53 pm
by Sapphire
Well, I guess congratulations are in order here. Congrats, Josh.
Re: So I was on AIOWiki. . .
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 3:53 pm
by ~JCGJ~
Hey, congrats!! I'm very happy for you!
COCONUTS ARE YUMMY.
Re: So I was on AIOWiki. . .
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:47 am
by Lee
I frequently check the top poster list so I knew this already. Congrats Marv!
Re: So I was on AIOWiki. . .
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 2:07 pm
by Marvin D.
Thank you! =P
Re: So I was on AIOWiki. . .
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 2:08 pm
by Kimi-Chan
Yay Josh! haha
Re: So I was on AIOWiki. . .
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:02 am
by Monty
Congrats! That's a lot of posts!
Re: So I was on AIOWiki. . .
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:38 am
by Marvin D.
Thank you! I'll slow down once I beat Catspaw!
Re: So I was on AIOWiki. . .
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 3:40 pm
by Musical Shutterbug
That is quite an interesting goal
Re: So I was on AIOWiki. . .
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 3:41 pm
by Marvin D.
Oh, brighten up!
Re: So I was on AIOWiki. . .
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 3:56 pm
by Musical Shutterbug
It seems appropriate that she would lead all of us ToOers in the post count, considering that she is the great Catspaw
Re: So I was on AIOWiki. . .
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:17 pm
by bookworm
IDANCE4JESUS wrote:It seems appropriate that she would lead all of us ToOers in the post count, considering that she is the great Catspaw
Exactly. I’ve always thought it a nice touch that she is the top poster, though I realize that it’s merely coincidence. (Meaning Shadowpaw didn’t choose her because of her post count, he chose her because of who she is.) Still, it would seem strange to have her knocked from the top spot.
Re: So I was on AIOWiki. . .
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:19 pm
by Lee
MARV. DON'T EVEN THINK OF TOUCHING SPOT NUMBER ONE.
I don't think you will though.