Well, all I can say is it's a great lesson in how ambigious people are, so the list might not be entirely accurate
Mike, I hate to sound like a nit-picker, but your numbers are off.
That's because they're not my numbers. In Mike's simple-world, 1 + 1 = 2.
I get that, really!
Here's what's not fine; "add 1 and maybe another 1". Or, " Add 1, and I agree with 1".
Mike's answer; " I haven't got time to make people's minds up for them ".
Seriously though, because the actual posts of the month are not strictly votes for a oustanding winner by tally, then people say "I agree". Am I to take "I agree" as "I second that nomination"? That's a whole other debate. :) But they are not under the premise that their nominations will be counted.
If it's any consolation, I didn't include two "possible nominations" for my own self, when in one instance I voted for myself, and in another instance someone apparently "agreed" with a nomination for me, which I didn't include as he didn't specify as to whether he was seconding the nomination for mike the wiz.
So my tally could be deemed to be 4 nominations this year.
So, I think logically the statistic I provided is useful, because I am fair, across the board. IOW, if I am unfair with you and Yaro, then I am unfair with everyone else. If I am fair with you and Yaro, I am fair with everyone else. Thus I apply a standard with no double standards. So infact, the statistic is not so much a "who got most", but rather a fair indication of how well specific posters have done, this year.
P.S. Maybe you shouldn't listen to me though, as Mr Hambre did say he wanted me as his lawyer if he was the murderer in a murder case. ;)
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-12-2005 01:38 PM
Holmes 8 Parasomnium 2 Phat 2 Crashfrog 2 Dan Carroll Sidelined Jar Cavediver Brad McFall RAZD arachnophilia
Clark said "I agree with the others who voted Holmes". I've included that as a vote for Holmes as Holmes's name is specified in the post-title. Pending further ambiguity, I'm off to go nuts in a corner.
JUST STATE WHO YOU VOTE FOR. :)
Listen I could "agree" that Holmes is one smart dude, but does that mean I voted for him? or that I agreed with the jolly good thoughts about him? *Yeesh*
Buckeye said "I tend to like Crashfrog's posts the best. They are direct and usually make a clear". So do I. What can we infer? *spins and spontaneously combusts*. Okay, I've included Buckeye's mention on the assumption that the post-title indicates his vote.
Tusko said he thinks Holmes is sexy. I'll include that as a vote. If Tusko argues that he infact didn't vote for Holmes, then can somebody please shoot him for me. ;)
After a lengthy rant, and a lot of mike-suffering, Holmes finally gave up his vote; "But I think I'll put RAZD down as my choice" :)
Grant me the assumption that I am catering for the mass, on the whim of entertaining some kind of specific criterion, that I may discretely seperate the wheat from the chaff, without being referred to as a total ass, who can't add 1 and 1.
I vote for Ben, because as well as being a solid debater, his posts are full of interesting factoids and touching anecdotes.
Close runner-up for me is Brad McFall. I believe it takes a lot out of him to post, and he posts more than most. And if you can make your way through the complex writing style, you often find something to take away with you.
He's one of the most intellectually and logically consistent posters I've ever encountered, and more often than not he's right."We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you."-George W. Bush, Gulfport, Miss., Sept. 20, 2005.
I've not done much reading and been absent a spell, so not all that apprised on what's been posted, but from what I've read, I've got to go with CanadianSteve, who is so thorough in supporting his views with factual documentation that I spent a good part of last evening just reading the Muslim/jihad thread and learning from the links he furnished, each link furnishing additional links to check out, linking additional verification of data furnished by links linked by CanadianSteve. Whether we agree or disagree with any given arguments by this thoroughly articulate, intelligent and sensible poster, we had better do our homework before engaging.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
Speaking as a poster, and stepping away from gathering the votes for a moment, I must say I find it hard as to who to vote for myself. I actually haven't been here that much this year so some fo these names are new to me.
What I will say is that I consciously seek out Schrafinator, Buzsaw and Phatboy, as their posts are usually very interesting to me.
I think the way Buz words things is interesting, and Phatz can just pull you in, he adds interest enormously for me. Shraff is also a very clean methodical refutation-machine. :) It's gota be one of those guys, and I'm going to consult message #15 in this thread, to see if my choices are justified.
P.S. Has NosyNed posted much this year? No one seems to have voted for him yet.
Thanks, Parsomnium, my dear counterpart friend, but demolished??:confused: Mmmm....., like I said, true blue and dependable adversarical counterpart friend! :D: God bless'im for kindness shown to me both then and now! :cool: The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
I'll vote for holmes as well. The guy rocks.well sure as planets come, i know that they end and if i'm here when they happens, will you promise me this my friend? please bury me with it i just don't need none of that mad max bullshit
I am voting for Schrafinator. A bit of favouritism? Hear my logic first!! :)
Phat, Buz and Crash have already been voted for, so I think I'll be the one to put her on the list. This year she spent a lot of time on twurps like me. :laugh: Her posts are in depth and intelligent. Sometimes I think, "Oh man, I've spent a paragraph on my refutation and she refuted him in one sentence". She thinks 3d, whereas I'm a 2d-twurp.