"So how do you get noticed on TMP?" Topic

Right, you want to be "a celebrity, to be famous" for Warhol's 15 minutes. How do you do that on this forum? How do you get your topic noticed?

It is fun to see which questions have raised the most responses, even if they do get way off the topic.

Let me offer a few suggestions;

Question how tall was Napoleon.
Cast doubts about the role of the Prussians at Waterloo.
Every so often thank respondents for their replies (the message is now back at the top one more)
Use the Napoleonic Discussion and only then cross post. The others (Painting, Products etc do less well).
Pretend you cannot speak English. (He does brilliantly, but has gone quiet lately)
Smile at the end of your new posting. (You may knock him, but he does find stuff most of us would have missed).
Have I missed anything?

Happy Easter to all………….He has Died, He is Risen and the Word is He might just come again…so let's play nicely, just in case……

Napoleon was 6'7"
Prussians never appeared at Waterloo
Thanks for this BTW
I no Speke da Angland
Just about covers everything
:-)

brilliant…………(grin)
Happy Easter Armand (Tango), Serg, Sparker, Brechtel, Summerfield et al BTW

Roger those call signs.

Given my typing I don't have to pretend I no haba da Engleesh…

Happy Easter too mate! I hear its quite a sunny one in the Old Country. Its a Bewdy here but we don't tend to notice…

Yeah, you get those skin things from the sun, though, instead. Just had mine excised off my cheek and it was called a "senile keratosis". The surgeon is an old mate, so he changed the diagnosis to "actinic keratosis", which sounded better.

The sun shone yesterday. We watched the footie. We got beaten (well, it was the local team, not West Ham, so who cares?) but we got our photo in the local paper!

link

page three photo 2, me with the cute little blonde, who trudged around Mt St Jean last weekend. Her only comment was "I thought it would be bigger"…….guess my response.

Come on Serg. You've gone quiet………let's keep this thread going. The record is over 200 responses!

Deadhead – it clearly says something for the Boro fanbase when the local paper can ensure they all get their picture in the paper!

I don't think I could see the picture to which you refer though!

"Right, you want to be "a celebrity, to be famous" for Warhol's 15 minutes. How do you do that on this forum? How do you get your topic noticed?"

Innocently ask which Napoleonic rule set you should adopt. This topic always reaches critical mass very quickly. Then you just stand back and watch the fire works.

Notice me! Notice me!
And Happy Easter to you, too.

I think I am invisible ‌‌‌‌

or insult any scale smaller than 28mm…the only serious scale. The rest are grains of rice after all.

Mention bricoles…..

Just a bunch of ropes, aren't they? Usually painted orange to commemorate their being invented by the Dutch (something like that, anyway).

Say that a ruleset i a beer and pretzels game – which we know that all rules published since Revolution and Empire are anyway .

Use Bernard Cornwell as evidence for anything?

Use a quote from one of the 'illuminati' to contradict them three days later on a different thread….and miss a comma!!!

He is risen indeed.

The Risen I can live with…it is the He will Come Again bit that worries me. I've seen these images of the Judgement Day in the Vatican, the Uffizi, Louvre etc……I have no desire to join Sergei Bondarachuk, Cassius, Brutus etc in Dante's lowest levels of the Inferno.

We have a very long way to go to beat the record for responses…..surely we can insult someone and get this going. Just for fun……

BRICOLES!, BRICOLES!, BRICOLES!

Napoleon died of natural causes, discuss.

I'll get my coat.

I thought he died of chewing the wallpaper………poor little chap

If you want attention you could suggest that there was no German nation prior to 1871. That usually provokes a response.

Just say Wellington was a "defensive" general.

Or compare Napoleon to Hitler.

Or another TMP member to Hitler.

Or attack someone because they haven't read obscure sources in the original French. Or German. Or Russian.

Failing that you could always claim that Waterloo was a german victory. I don't think anyone has ever done that before.

That the War of 1812 was part, or not part of the Napoleonic War's!

Who won the War of 1812?

Obvious 11th ACR. The Tsar, Kutuzov, the Russians. Have you never listened to the Overture?

Suggest that any of Sam Mustafa's card-driven games are no better than Warhampster fantasy series where your wizard can cast 'create swamp' spells.

Pick any thread. Take a position completely opposite of the person with the most stifles. Quote random books found on Amazon to prove your position. Belittle anyone who disagrees with you. Deny being rude. Use random quotes out of context from earlier posts or other threads to prove that you weren't rude first.

Bob's your uncle.

Gentlemen, I think we have a winner,

Who won the War of 1812?

Make a joke about Dachhunds beeing the real masterminds behind the 3rd reich.

This is proving to be one of the best threads ever! There's a chuckle out of memory on each one!

My own contributions are…

"It's just a game!"

"They're only toy soldiers"

"Why do you guys have to be so mean to each other?"

"I like ____________rules! (fill in the blank).

"Hello, my name is____________" (Don't fill in the blank if you know what's good for you!)

Surely the way to start a row on TMP is to ask about "which is the best Napoleonics figure line?" And then listen to all the people suggesting anything other than AB…

And then follow up with "I was thinking of using "XYZ" rules, what do you think?"

Malc

Proclaim that you are a fan of a certain sports team, that will instantly annoy people and get you noticed.

Then make fun of an American sport you know nothing about and spout off about how a similar sport in your country is better and the players are tougher.

That will get you noticed.

Participate

"Empire, is the best set of Napoleonic rules to play".

"You don't have to paint your figures, to wargame with them".

"John the OFM, and Connard Sage are misunderstood guys".

Well we still have a long way to go. Going back a few years, there are few topics that get over the 200 response mark. Those that do, mostly insult Napoleon "This puts him in a new light" scored 528 by comparing him to Hitler (as mentioned earlier), all based on a Daily Mail article. "Double standard for Napoleon" suggesting that we set higher moral standards when judging Boney seemed to hold the record at 609. Lamenting the banning of Peter Hofschroer from the site (is that really true?) got 343 outraged comments.

"Napoleon is responsible for US gun laws"
"Size does matter (on a wargames table)"
"Wargamers are not all overweight can wear something other than T shirts"
"Plastic figures are for the kids, just to get started"
"An Austrian, French and British pound are all exactly the same if 12 of them hits you in a sphere travelling at high speed"

See, I was right above when I said he died of chewing the wallpaper? Now that is how to get a topic going…….
TMP link

Where can I find out more about Warhamster Rules?

Is this the Mick Collins who flew around the moon or is it yer man from the County Cork?

Warhamster Rules?….naw West Ham rules……(we have a long way to go with this topic to beat the record). Ask Armand (Tango)….grin. If anyone knows he will.

Sailing backwards for Christmas, the Collins`s left the old country in the 1850`s or 60`s, which was quite a popular manoeuvre at the time.
Who`s this Mick Collins?
I do remember watching the moon landing on TV – and 1969, that was probably the the last time West Ham played football in the "West Ham Way"!

I may have misheard this at the club, but I believe that these Warhamster rules require "bucket loads of mice"?

My friend Deadhead,

whilst talking about conspiracy theories is often a very good way to get noticed, it rarely ends up being a good discussion on TMP. In the thread you just mentioned the came out in their droves to ; it's a good way to drown out honest discourse you see.

That was a pity, as the death of Napoleon is quite an interesting topic. Only one of them bothered to even try and make an argument, and even then it was a mess. After making a whole list of strawmen he then invoked Godwin's law in a sad attempt to avoid the point that was being made. Then he said Napoleon died from a "gastric erosion process" (how wonderfully vague and silly, I bet he believes in the magic bullet theory too), even though I had already listed some twenty different symptoms present in Napoleon that are more consistent with arsenic poisonic, as well as explaining to him (twice) that very obese people do not have "eroded" stomachs. He finished off by trying to pass off something that happened in the 1580's as being "Napoleonic culture of the times".

It was extremely funny to see these tactics unfold. I made quite a few silly mistakes in that thread too (tends to happen when the ), but like I said, such subjects rarely end up in civilised discourse.

But you'll be gauranteed another couple of hundred posts if we decide to go down that road. Could be fun, but far from edifying.

MichaelCollinsHimself, sure you must have seen the fillum. Liam Neeson saying "Ah, they won't shoot me in my own county". The real Big Fella said that and he was wrong. They did.

Telestic Warrior. We'll never be sure, but I know descendants get cross at suggestions that Count de M was involved. Two books on the subject made great reading, nonetheless. Napoleon's health is a fascinating subject and how he survived as long as he did if he really had thrombosed piles, pyelonephritis, erosive gastric Ca, Frohlich's Syndrome (or was it Klinefelter's), was his pituitary gland working, is a miracle. I gather he actually rallied once he first got to St Helena, though.

I have no doubt that Lee H Oswald fired the "best" three shots of his life and there was no one on the grassy knoll, but the conspiracy books make great reading (except for one that suggested a bodyguard accidentally fired his M16 as he toppled back and did the damage. Some conspiracy theories are barking mad). You have a very interesting topic there and superbly researched. It will always be a theory, let folk take it or leave it…their choice

let's face it…the discussion about Napoleon's cause of death is nothing compared to the lunatics that concentrate on the Pont d'Alma. At least for St Helena there can be sensible discussion and research.

Did Napoleon define the times, or did the times define Napoleon?

Was his name really Napoleon anyway? Bit like the other chap really….Austrian chap…..more than one surname and, even then, more than one spelling. We'll get there. I think the record is a little over 600 responses….

Complain that you just got your first stifle on the TMP talk forum. That's like honey to ants!

TW,

Purveyors of 'honest discourse' generally provide actual evidence to back up their views. They do not normally post a rash of evidence-bereft, internet-borne ordure and challenge others to disprove what has not yet been proven. They also do not arrogantly describe anyone who disagrees with their unproven and frankly bizarre views as 'sheeple', members of the 'herd' or what was the other one you used? Oh yes, 'meat puppets'.

You sir, remain a towering thundertwunt.

deadhead 30 Apr 2014 2:29 p.m. PST

Was his name really Napoleon anyway?

*NJH: Only if you use the American-English spelling – If you use the English-English spelling it's Napouleoun.

Deadhead,

I totally agree with you that the accidental bodyguard theory is completely barking mad, but I must strongly dispute your labelling it as a conspiracy theory. In fact, it is pretty much the exact opposite of a conspiracy theory. Firstly, a conspiracy must be more than one person acting TOGETHER to DELIBERATELY commit a crime, so obviously Oswald as lone-gunman plus accidental shot by a bodyguard doesn't fall in that category*. Secondly, all JFK conspiracy thories are united in their derision of the Oswald lone gunman theory, whilst the accidental gunman nonsense actually tries to apologise for it. Defenders of the faith know that the Official Oswald lie cannot be rationally defended, so they have to come up with even more craziness to account for the extra shots, such as magic bullets, and now all this crap about an accidental shot by a drunk/hung-over bodyguard. Please do not try to associate off-shoots of the official lone gun-man silliness with conspiracy theories, which have already actually explained who the real shooters were**. We had enough problems with people framing the discussion in the wrong way in the last thread.

*I suppose someone could argue that a subsequent cover-up of an accidental gun-misfire could possibly be classed as a conspiracy, although the act itself could not be. But even that would miss the important point about drawing a clear distinction between the official lie and attempts to question it.

**At least two seperate gun-teams, the first of James Files (previously known as James Sutton, confessions linked too here link & YouTube link ), Charles Nicoletti, and John Nicoletti. The second team of Charles Harrelson, Charles Rogers and E.Howard Hunt (see the famous "three tramps" photo) probably didn't do any actual shooting but were there to aid the operation (confession of Hunts involvement in the assassination here YouTube link ).
What are the chances of at least 6 known killers/hit-men/ assassins (7 if we include Morales) being in the Plaza that day? I didn't think anybody still believed in the Oswald lone gunman theory except those in officialdom!

Davies,

I think you know exactly what you are. I told you in the last thread that I don't engage in intelligent discussion with .

Perhaps the funniest thing is those people who seriously take up the topics listed on this thread and start them all over, rather than realize the subjects are an object of humor and satire.

One more

Defending breasts on the "Needs More Boobies Thread."