which category are you guys hoping for now, inventive use of smileys??
:eek: :rolleyes: 
† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13
David B. has GOT to be MY favorite moderator. Mainly because none of the other mods ever commented back to me about ANything. And he’s pretty funny, for an agnostic!
I can think of no reply that would merit consideration in this forum.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
You’ve got it easy, you big baby: my tanning booth ran amok.
Hell is Other People.
Spiritus, I vote for you for apathetic bastard.
Hell is Other People.
I want to be honorary Troll Puppet, by which all others are judged. After seeing my sig line you will understand my brazen and bold request.
Troll Puppet: A well paid conveniently placed lobbyist and supporter of anyone having enough funds to retain him/her. 
Orangecakes said:
I’d get offended at that last comment, but I don’t want to scare away potential voters!
What is this? How come there’s no “Most arrogant” category? Not even any “Best taunts”. It’s as if these awards purposely avoided my skills.
Whew… when I first read that I thought it said “and pretty for an agnostic” and was wondering what orangecakes was talking about, does he knowing something we don’t know. Did I just put my foot in my mouth? RUMBLE ZAP CRASH BZZZT (purple lightning bolt from the heavens) thump.
I am only 5 more posts (after this one) away from having “rwx privs for me, and no privs for group and no privs for other number” of posts.
Heh, go figure that one out.
Good God … I am a geek.
Konrad said:
Yeah, well, there’s not even one for “Moderator Most Likely To Be Target of a Pit Thread,” so don’t feel like you were the only one left out!
I think it’s rather funny that there are votes for things that are objectively determined, like oldest and youngest or most posts.
Glitch said:
You just pulled a Libertarian. Orangecakes is a “she.”
Oops, well that would explain my original reading anyway … RUMBLE CRASH dodge … Ha ha … you missed! ZAP thump
You know the post on # of posts and privs kind of loses its affect without it reading 695.
David B sez:
Or even “Most likely to be targeted by the criminally insane”.
I noticed that if I nominated anyone, for any category, the name would automatically be on the list of candidates. There’s no “minimal nomination” process or anything; just nominate WallyM7 for class clown, and poof, he’s there. (Assuming a category called “class clown” existed, of course.)
This reminded me of that old scam artist who mailed out cassette tapes titled “Dead Doctors Don’t Lie” to just about everyone on the planet. He claimed that mineral deficiencies were responsible for all health problems, from heart attacks to getting run over by a car, and said that only his special colloidal mineral supplements could get enough minerals into your body fast enough to save you. What was noteworthy was at the beginning of the tape, he was introduced as a “nominee for the Nobel Prize in Medicine.”
It turns out that Nobel nominations work like OpalCat’s SDMBer nominations. All you have to do is send a letter to the Nobel committee saying, “I think Dr. So-and-so should be given the Nobel Prize in Medicine because …”, and poof, Dr. So-and-so is a Nobel Prize nominee.
Just thought I’d pass that on.
That’s so cool, tracer! Can I nominate myself? Geez, talk about impressive resume material.
Tracer, it’s none of my business, but why is my name and the Nobel Prize mentioned in the same post?
Sorry, the Cliche Clique is not accepting new members at this time,
Pardon me, but I just wanted to post so that I could try out the new post counter thingy thing.
OK, maybe I’m not the crankiest poster. I still want to be voted crankiest poster, though - I’ve got a virtual resume I want to fluff up!
While I’m at it, it’s been noted in parallel threads on the other forums that we get to vote on factual matters. Vote for me for most posts (male)! So what if I’m about 2600 posts behind David B? Overturn the truth - vote for me!
Yes, anybody can nominate anybody (including yourself). But the whole thing doesn’t seem to be working right. I’ve done some test votes and when I go back to check later, the person for whom I voted shows no votes. I’ve e-mailed Opal to tell her about this (several times) but she hasn’t responded and as far as I can tell, it hasn’t been fixed.
So I guess we can debate two things now: Whether votes should be taken on objective things (like oldest, youngest, most messages, etc.) and whether votes that don’t work right should mean anything.