Ship of Fools: Lamest Hell Thread

Thread: Lamest Hell Thread Board: The Simmies 2009 / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=74;t=000004

Posted by Simon (# 1) on :

If you have a recurring problem of suddenly waking as your forehead smacks into the keyboard, maybe it's because you're reading the most boring threads known to man. Those threads which fancy themselves as pure evil, but are just mildly naughty. Name and shame them here.

When nominating on this thread, please follow the format shown in the next post. If you don't have all the info you need to complete the nomination fields, you're not yet ready to nominate. Just make a regular post asking for the help of others in finding what you're looking for.

Please note: Your nomination post should simply contain your nomination and nothing else.

Posted by Simon (# 1) on :

NOMINATION

I nominate: Thread title

For: Lamest Hell Thread

Thread URL: Insert clickable link to the nominated thread here

Special mentions: Names of shipmates (5 max.) who contributed most to the thread

My reasons for nominating: Your comments in full here

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

I nominate: If you aren't guilty, why call your lawyer?

For: Lamest Hell thread

Thread URL: here

Special mentions: SpikeyPants/Paddy O'Furniture for the OP, DmplnJeff for bizarre paranoia

My reasons for nominating: What's isn't lame about it? As if it wasn't enough to complain about someone seeking legal representation and assume that man's guilt because he had the sense to exercise his legal rights, the two-part OP was a case study in crappy lameness, as observed by jlg.

And then, to round things off, we get a splendid demonstration of how not to backtrack from a lame OP in Hell, with increasingly pathetic cringing and apologies for just about everything under the sun. The thread was so obviously lame that no one could even raise the energy to redeem its lameness by giving the OPer a thorough flaming, and even the banter from the peanut gallery couldn't raise a moment of shining wit to sparkle in the dungheap of the thread.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

NOMINATION

I nominate: Some folks never learn

For: Lamest Hell Thread

Thread URL: Link

Special mentions: DmplnJeff. Hardly anyone else got a look-in.

My reasons for nominating: A babbling, virtually nonsense OP. Most of the discussion was about the OPers signature. RooK's closing comment sums it up nicely:

quote:
You think this kind of vacuous babbling is suitable basis for a Hell thread?

It's not. It's bad enough that it's what most threads devolve into, but actually start off with limp confusion masquerading Hellishness is not sufficient. Closing this thread is doing all of us a favour.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

NOMINATION

I nominate: Being able to count is not part of the job description

For: Lamest Hell Thread

Thread URL: Link

Special mentions:

My reasons for nominating: Pointless rant about obscure ITV prgram, lacks any aspect hellishness - no venom, no real outrage, no wit, no interesting interactions between participants ...

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

[Killing me]

It's going to be very hard to beat Doublethink's nomination. It's everything she says it is and less.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I nominate: Mousethief

For: Lamest Hell Thread

Thread URL: Here

Special mentions: DmplnJeff

My reasons for nominating: Probably the most unjustified hell call I've seen in a dog's age. DmplnJeff should have been called to hell himself, but he got down there to tell his story first, I guess.

Zach

[ 11. December 2008, 22:57: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

I second Zach's motion. That thread was a damp squib. The only flaming it did was to flame out. Plus it was a party thread.

Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I nominate: If you aren't guilty, why call your lawyer?

For: Lamest Hell thread

Thread URL: here

Special mentions: SpikeyPants/Paddy O'Furniture for the OP, DmplnJeff for bizarre paranoia

My reasons for nominating: What's isn't lame about it? As if it wasn't enough to complain about someone seeking legal representation and assume that man's guilt because he had the sense to exercise his legal rights, the two-part OP was a case study in crappy lameness, as observed by jlg.

And then, to round things off, we get a splendid demonstration of how not to backtrack from a lame OP in Hell, with increasingly pathetic cringing and apologies for just about everything under the sun. The thread was so obviously lame that no one could even raise the energy to redeem its lameness by giving the OPer a thorough flaming, and even the banter from the peanut gallery couldn't raise a moment of shining wit to sparkle in the dungheap of the thread.

Gosh, thanks!

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

I would like to nominate
the 'Is the Jewish religion on a pedestal'
thread
in hell.
Its really lame.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

But a truly lame thread
is entirely devoid
of humour and vitriol.
This thread is
funny, at least.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

The Jew on a Pedestal thread is funny in
Deed But not of intent. On
Ly on account of the OP
-ers passive-aggressive
Complex.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
But a truly lame thread
is entirely devoid
of humour and vitriol.
This thread is
funny, at least.

You're right.
The OP's daft but the rest is hilarious.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

I nominate Death to mice that eat tents
for lamest Hell htread
Found here
Nat's get a mention for for not thinking.

It dues to be nominated due to being very short and having no real point.

Posted by frin (# 9) on :

NOMINATION

I nominate: I thought this was a Christian Bookshop

For: Lamest Hell Thread

Thread URL: I thought this was a Christian Bookshop

Special mentions: Persephone Hazard for a blank OP, Zwingli for a thread killing witty retort.

My reasons for nominating: The much remarked upon saga of the St Stephen the Great bookshops may have deserved a hell thread. This wasn't it. For all the thread is reopened, it essentially allows the peanut gallery a new thread for two days of substandard play, rather than illuminating or even decrying the demise of liberal Christian bookselling in the UK.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by frin:
For all the thread is reopened, it essentially allows the peanut gallery a new thread for two days of substandard play, rather than illuminating or even decrying the demise of liberal Christian bookselling in the UK.

And poor Ruth deserves an award for valiantly trying to keep it on topic.

[ 22. December 2008, 17:33: Message edited by: Chorister ]

Posted by Zwingli (# 4438) on :

I'd actually completely forgotten that thread. Hence, I hope I am no longer held responsible for anything I may have said, or any threads which may have died in the process.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0