|
If you say so, I believe you.
A ghost from the past. Known to others as "Linda".
|
|
|
|
|
Is that you in your profile pic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
enhzflep wrote: This pages appears to indicate that it isn't:
I know. It's all part of his 'elaborate' disguise.
|
|
|
|
|
enhzflep wrote to Member 8888914 (Marco Bertschi): Have fun, seeya in 2 years or so. Try not to get your a$$ shot-off in the next couple of years of military service.
Dropkicked Murphy wrote: I got to disappoint you, but IIRC army service is only about 21 weeks (basic course) in Switzerland. And as far as I can recall the country is neutral, so no real danger for any army member 
Sorry, missed replying to your post before it was deleted.
No, no disappointment here. I feel a little foolish that my memory let me down - I guess I'd read/heard the figure of 21 weeks and recalled it as 21 months. I'm really not conversant with the figures for training casualties in armies across the world, though the training record of the Australian SAS alarms me. I cant find it just now, but my (probably faulty) memory is that roughly 90% of Australian SAS deaths have occurred during training exercises. The point being that training in and of itself is not an endeavour that comes without risk.
Not sure how my message came across as insincere, you've mistaken my intentions entirely. I said what I meant and am rather curious as to your reason for jumping to such a conclusion.
I was a little put-out by (a) the fact that the user-name was changed From Marco Bertschi to Member8888914 and (b) the country was changed from Switzerland to Afghanistan, but they're both entirely irrelevant. I checked the profile and realized the change in identity as a result of recognizing the sig. It was a quote from Dalek Dave and one I knew I'd read in someone's sig recently. Curiosity dictated that I follow the rabbit down the hole, whereupon I discovered the attempt at disguising the identity before the account was nuked. (The protector icon helped somewhat in the identification of an anomaly)
|
|
|
|
|
enhzflep wrote: Sorry, missed replying to your post before it was deleted.
Brilliant. Although I had already seen these deleted posts (There was another on the Phew Thread).
Another one to add to the list Marco.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that this user is Marco re-incarnated, but I'll take your word for it, since it makes no difference to me. Anyone could be forgiven for thinking that the conversation you kept having with Marco was a lover's tiff.
Which, I don't propose for a second it is, that would be ludicrous.
It just seems odd to me that each of you got so bent out of shape yesterday - like each of you were trying to convince the other of the error of their ways. I didn't follow along from the point that it turned sour for each of you on this site, but never-to-mind. It clearly kept you both occupied and likely provided a source of mirth for many other casual observers.
There's no need to agree with everyone, but the world is a much sweeter place if we can all just get along. Thanks for the lulz. 
|
|
|
|
|
You and Marco got a bit carried away yesterday, and it escalated into a gentle warning from Sean, directed at both of you.
Please, don't start it again - particularly when Dropkicked Murphy may or may not be who you think he is, and has done nothing offencive or even mildly annoying.
Let's just leave it out, eh? Because it can't end well...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: particularly when Dropkicked Murphy ....... and has done nothing offencive or even mildly annoying
I find reporting every post I have made this morning as mildly annoying (He will deny this as he is a serial liar). BTW by a strange coincidence Marco use to do this too.
Also reporting lots of messages of mine that I made yesterday, that he also reported as Marco, amount to an abuse of the system.
OriginalGriff wrote: Dropkicked Murphy may or may not be who you think he is
Your having a laugh aren't you?
|
|
|
|
|
Blue Waffle wrote: Your having a laugh aren't you?
No, I'm not.
I have no evidence who DM is or isn't- and neither do you - I know exactly who you are assuming he is, but that is "faith" rather than "science" and I don't have truck with that.
DM may or may not have reported you - only the admins can tell, and they won't - but I would have to say I could understand people reporting you for trying to start a flame war in the lounge if that is the posts you are referring to! So it may not have been one person only, let alone one specific person: there are some very twitchy trigger fingers round here as you well know...
Please, calm down, ignore it, and let's all move on with our lives!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: I know exactly who you are assuming he is, but that is "faith" rather than "science" and I don't have truck with that.
Please can we have a bet on this.
OriginalGriff wrote: DM may or may not have reported you
Can we have a bet on this also. Double or quits
OriginalGriff wrote: Please, calm down, ignore it, and let's all move on with our lives!
This is hard to explain - What I can't abide is people who run around reporting people, acting like Traffic Wardens but who abuse the system themselves. As far as I can make out the report system was put in place primarily to get rid of the Spam. It was not meant for people to try to vote off people they don't like. Voting for the same message to be removed twice, under two different accounts, in my book is one of the worst abuses off this site a lot worse than posting an abusive message. Now if that offence is committed by the same person who runs around like he is the sites personally appointed Traffic Warden then that is wrong.
Now, if you've taken me up on the last two bets you are going to be a bit light in the pocket and your Missus will be peeved, so I'll give you one last chance. Double or Quits. That I have messages that are reported by both Marco and Dropkick.
I'm just off to tell my Boss I might be retiring Today.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, I only bet on certainties!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Me too. Hence my willingness to bet 
|
|
|
|
|
Blue Waffle wrote: Anyway I'm going to leave it here.
I really wish you had. Why do you persist in this?
|
|
|
|
|
Blue Waffle wrote: Anyway I'm going to leave it here.
You spotted the (can't think of the word) on my part then.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Why do you persist in this
Because I was lied to in the next message. Not only that but the lie was so blatant it was inferring I (and the rest of us) were mugs and would fall for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a good place to vent.
Having mostly flamewars in the lounge lately really sucks...
|
|
|
|
|
Not explosion but Exposición, anyway Explosion would be even better...
|
|
|
|
|
It's reads "Exposicion" in that sign, but funnily enough I did read it as Explosion first time round and deem that reasonably funny by itself.
Cheers!
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know, but this Dr. Whet Faartz is full of cr@p.
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly we both aspire to the the same level of humor. 
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, thanks to French retirement law and being on a salary from BT while at Uni I am going to be able to retire at the end of the month.
My employer wants to keep me on as a consultant which will involve some specification/standards drafting, occasional phone IT support and site visits for hardware installation/configuration (we have a SAN project that starts in June).
I have been advised to charge twice my current hourly salary, which seems reasonable, but I am wondering about how to charge. What do others think about, for example, charging a minimum half a day if I have to go into the office? Or minimum 30 minutes for any support phone calls?
All ideas and comments welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
Clumpco wrote: how much, to charge?
Whatever you can get. Don't be afraid to ask for a lot.
If they don't try to talk you down you didn't ask for enough. 
Yes - definitely have provision for a minimum day and phone support.
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am.
JimmyRopes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clumpco wrote: I have been advised to charge twice my current hourly salary,
This is because you will approximately get to keep one half of what you will be earning, the rest is for taxes  . This means you will get in the end about as much as what you had been earning so far. The question is: is that OK for you, or do you want to charge more ?
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Entropy isn't what it used to.
|
|
|
|
|
Rage wrote: the rest is for taxes
Yup! 
Actually not quite so bad as all that, there is a relatively new status for self-employed here called an "auto-entrepreneur" where if you keep your annual turnover below a limit (32700€) you pay a global health insurance/income tax contribution of 26% on 69% of your earnings. Works out at about 18%. No VAT either.
Maybe I should wait and see how much they offer first.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
