Finally - no more stubs for away games

[kick it off 2,062]

Moving to a points based system.

http://www.canaries.co.uk/news/article/away-ticket-allocation-system-908486.aspx?

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

I''m not normally one for the forum police, but come on!http://services.pinkun.com/forums/pinkun/cs/forums/5/2942373/ShowPost.aspx#2942373This thread has been round for days, including about 30 odd posts today.

[kick it off 2,062]

Apologies. As it said mixed messages blahblah I never bothered reading. At least if there were mixed messages there is now clarity.

[lake district canary 4,830]

No apologies necessary.   Good to hear the system is improving.

[MrFruit 28]

Unless I''ve read it wrong you get 50 points per game

So that means 50 points for say Arsenal away on a Saturday afternoon 3pm

& 50 points for say Newcastle away on a Sunday afternoon 4pm live on Sky

If this is correct then the system does not reward loyalty?

Additionally,1000 points for season ticket holders? That''s far to many = 20 away games without attending 1!

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="lake district canary"]No apologies necessary.   Good to hear the system is improving.[/quote]Of course the apology was necessary. It states clearly in the code of conduct........"2. Keep to the topic of the original thread and do not post multiple threads on the same subject".Or do you consider yourself more important than ''Web Team - Celia Sutton''? [:P]

[lake district canary 4,830]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="lake district canary"]No apologies necessary.   Good to hear the system is improving.[/quote]Of course the apology was necessary. It states clearly in the code of conduct........"2. Keep to the topic of the original thread and do not post multiple threads on the same subject".Or do you consider yourself more important than ''Web Team - Celia Sutton''? [:P][/quote]

No.  The thread is a different title and is giving new information. useful information. I too had given up looking at the mixed messages thread.  As I said no apology is necessary.  Too many wannabe policemen on here.  [:P]

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="lake district canary"]No apologies necessary.   Good to hear the system is improving.[/quote]Of course the apology was necessary. It states clearly in the code of conduct........"2. Keep to the topic of the original thread and do not post multiple threads on the same subject".Or do you consider yourself more important than ''Web Team - Celia Sutton''? [:P][/quote]

No.  The thread is a different title and is giving new information. useful information. I too had given up looking at the mixed messages thread.  As I said no apology is necessary.  Too many wannabe policemen on here.  [:P][/quote]I''m only trying to be helpful LDC. [:D]Now, which part of "do not post multiple threads on the same subject" is it you don''t understand?Clearly "new information. useful information" on the same subject as the original thread is surely "the same subject".Giving the new thread a different title was surely a clever (devious) way to create a new thread on the same subject.I feel sure that even you, with your limited ability to understand even the simplest of explanations, will understand this. [;)] [:D]

[lake district canary 4,830]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="lake district canary"]No apologies necessary.   Good to hear the system is improving.[/quote]Of course the apology was necessary. It states clearly in the code of conduct........"2. Keep to the topic of the original thread and do not post multiple threads on the same subject".Or do you consider yourself more important than ''Web Team - Celia Sutton''? [:P][/quote]No.  The thread is a different title and is giving new information. useful information. I too had given up looking at the mixed messages thread.  As I said no apology is necessary.  Too many wannabe policemen on here.  [:P][/quote]I''m only trying to be helpful LDC. [:D]Now, which part of "do not post multiple threads on the same subject" is it you don''t understand?Clearly "new information. useful information" on the same subject as the original thread is surely "the same subject".Giving the new thread a different title was surely a clever (devious) way to create a new thread on the same subject.I feel sure that even you, with your limited ability to understand even the simplest of explanations, will understand this. [;)] [:D] [/quote]

Now I know you are chief wind up merchant, but what part of my post do you not understand?  I''ve highlighted it in red just in case you can''t see it properly.  It was new information to me. It drew attention to something that I wasn''t aware of, having stopped looking at the "mixed messages" thread soon after it appeared as nothing concrete was being said.  Therefore to me it was informative. Unlike some I don''t sit here all day reading through every thread.  I repeat, to me there was no need to apologise for a thread that gave me information I hadn''t seen.  Like I say - too many wannabe policemen. 

[spencer 1970 214]

I''ve been on at them for ages about this, many emails, many calls. We needed to move away from being so "Village" about how we grouped tickets for fans...Bravo NCFC, even if I feel the away fans are ever-so-slightly penalised.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="lake district canary"]No apologies necessary.   Good to hear the system is improving.[/quote]Of course the apology was necessary. It states clearly in the code of conduct........"2. Keep to the topic of the original thread and do not post multiple threads on the same subject".Or do you consider yourself more important than ''Web Team - Celia Sutton''? [:P][/quote]No.  The thread is a different title and is giving new information. useful information. I too had given up looking at the mixed messages thread.  As I said no apology is necessary.  Too many wannabe policemen on here.  [:P][/quote]I''m only trying to be helpful LDC. [:D]Now, which part of "do not post multiple threads on the same subject" is it you don''t understand?Clearly "new information. useful information" on the same subject as the original thread is surely "the same subject".Giving the new thread a different title was surely a clever (devious) way to create a new thread on the same subject.I feel sure that even you, with your limited ability to understand even the simplest of explanations, will understand this. [;)] [:D] [/quote]

Now I know you are chief wind up merchant, but what part of my post do you not understand?  I''ve highlighted it in red just in case you can''t see it properly.  It was new information to me. It drew attention to something that I wasn''t aware of, having stopped looking at the "mixed messages" thread soon after it appeared as nothing concrete was being said.  Therefore to me it was informative. Unlike some I don''t sit here all day reading through every thread.[/quote]Typical LDC, refuses to use one word when a sentence will do!Unfortunately I''m having to resort to your tactics of highlighting in red although we are both highlighting your inconsistencies and contradictions.Quite simply, if the new information had been posted on the original thread then you wouldn''t have stopped looking at it unless you have some mystical power which enables you to decide whether new, unread posts contain concrete information or not.As for time spent on the site, are you seriously suggesting it''s quicker to click on a new thread rather than an existing one?

[lake district canary 4,830]

Lappin Internet Police Enquiry  No. 2513 "highlighting your inconsistencies and contradictions."

That''s just it isn''t it?   There are no inconsistencies.  Read through the thread again if you can be bothered.   And then try and post something that actually corresponds to the truth.   I  found the thread actually said something I wasn''t aware of, therefore no need for the apology. End of story.   Sorry if that doesn''t fit with your view of things, but hey ho, we''re all different, aren''t we............thank goodness. 

 

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="lake district canary"]Lappin Internet Police Enquiry  No. 2513 "highlighting your inconsistencies and contradictions."

That''s just it isn''t it?   There are no inconsistencies.  Read through the thread again if you can be bothered.   And then try and post something that actually corresponds to the truth.   I  found the thread actually said something I wasn''t aware of, therefore no need for the apology. End of story.   Sorry if that doesn''t fit with your view of things, but hey ho, we''re all different, aren''t we............thank goodness.[/quote]Oh, right. So, despite being discussed in detail on the original thread and posted on the Official Site too, you still feel there was a need for a new thread over two hours later which basically was just a link to the offy site? I''ve got it now....I think! [8-)]

[Yellowfuture 71]

Presumably there are rules to prevent this type of foolish oneupmanship as well, or is this sort of tripe acceptable, where as posting a thread on an existing topic is something you strongly object to Lappin?  Perhaps you should consider what the rules are trying to achieve, I imagime the sort of crap thread that you have turned this into!

[im spartacus canary 0]

personally if there are 2 threads on the same topic i would go for the one with 15 replies rather than the one with 115 replies i don''t see why people get so upset about multiple threads you write your opinion , post it and either it gets read or it doesn''t its hardly bloody life changing either way is it ?