|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 299 responses total. |
albaugh
|
|
response 263 of 299:
| 
Apr 18 17:27 UTC 2005 |
All these "slippery slope" arguments are so timersome. The first time you
do one thing that is in the problem space of another, you're just naturally
on the road to doing the other. Because you're quite clearly infantile and
unable to discern X from Y. Puh-leeze. I don't know if there *is* any good
answer to the twits, but not doing something which might be effective just
because it seems like some kind of censorship and so perforce will lead to
all other manner of censorship is crapola.
|
cross
|
|
response 264 of 299:
|
Apr 18 18:12 UTC 2005 |
Maybe. But the probability of anyone actually getting off their ass
and doing anything is slim to none.
|
tod
|
|
response 265 of 299:
|
Apr 18 18:23 UTC 2005 |
re #264
I disagree. I bet there is at least one person on staff that has censored
individuals without much notice other than from the victim.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 266 of 299:
|
Apr 18 19:09 UTC 2005 |
r253: that's ok, i really don't read her stuff either
she's too much of a nun.
|
cross
|
|
response 267 of 299:
|
Apr 18 19:43 UTC 2005 |
Probably, but I doubt anyone is going to go to the effort to implement
anything more advanced than the crude censorship capabilities we have
now.
|
tod
|
|
response 268 of 299:
|
Apr 18 19:47 UTC 2005 |
re #267
I would hate to see the effort wasted when there are more fruitful projects
like enterprise wide spam filter defaults.
|
md
|
|
response 269 of 299:
|
Apr 23 15:26 UTC 2005 |
Sometimes the little kid who goes from person to person at a party
repeating "Booger!" is actually more entertaining than the partygoers
themselves. I would be very reluctant to send that little kid out of
the room and am usually sorry to see it happen. On the other hand, you
couldn't really call it "censorship" to do so, could you?
|
naftee
|
|
response 270 of 299:
|
Apr 23 16:15 UTC 2005 |
booger.
i haven't used that word since second grade
|
scholar
|
|
response 271 of 299:
|
Apr 23 16:44 UTC 2005 |
AHAH GUYS DID YOU KNOWONE TIME THERE WAS A FAMOUS EUROPEAN FAMILY NAMED THE
FUGGERS
|
tod
|
|
response 272 of 299:
|
Apr 23 17:30 UTC 2005 |
If everyone agreed who the "little kid" is then you'd have a point but
everyone on Grex has different definitions for twit.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 273 of 299:
|
Apr 23 21:12 UTC 2005 |
The main problem is that the little kid generally isn't capable of
appreciating the distinction that, althoug doing something once will
elicit attention and might even be funny, doing the same thing a
hundred more times will not be funny.
Simpsons writers struggle with this issue all the time -- when you have
a bit which is essentially the same thing repeated over and over (e.g.
"Will you take us to Mount Slashmore?") how many times does it remain
funny? It's not a simple curve. At first it's a bit funny, then after
you repeat it three or four times it loses its funniness. But after
seven or ten times, if you time it right, it gets funny again.
The key is to have proper timing such that:
- It gets funny again (something little kids are unlikely to be able to
do properly)
- You stop doing it when it's funny again, rather than continuing on to
the point where it's tiresome
|
tod
|
|
response 274 of 299:
|
Apr 24 00:00 UTC 2005 |
THANSK MARC!!
|
naftee
|
|
response 275 of 299:
|
Apr 24 05:00 UTC 2005 |
THANKS< TOD
|
aruba
|
|
response 276 of 299:
|
Apr 24 20:04 UTC 2005 |
I think funniness will inevitably decay to 0 as repetitions approach
infinity. Perhaps, as Marc pointed out, not monotonically. After many
years of the current twits, any entertainment value they provided is long
gone.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 277 of 299:
|
Apr 24 20:43 UTC 2005 |
I believe your bounding assumptions to be incorrect. I am quite convinced
that with enough repetition something can have negative funniness, actually
sucking the enjoyment out of surrounding comments.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 278 of 299:
|
Apr 25 07:48 UTC 2005 |
MD! WHERE YOU BEEN?
|
aruba
|
|
response 279 of 299:
|
Apr 25 18:40 UTC 2005 |
Re #277: Quite so.
|
md
|
|
response 280 of 299:
|
Apr 26 00:56 UTC 2005 |
Workin, Barry. When I try to log on to Grex lately, in ain't there.
But you know you have reached bottom when you have to fucking TELNET
in.
|
naftee
|
|
response 281 of 299:
|
Apr 26 01:50 UTC 2005 |
another surrender to the backtalk craze :(
|
happyboy
|
|
response 282 of 299:
|
Apr 26 08:28 UTC 2005 |
re280:
:) good to see you anyhow, eh?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 283 of 299:
|
Jun 8 17:30 UTC 2005 |
Who owns newuser? Is it open source software, or did Grex license it from
someone?
|
naftee
|
|
response 284 of 299:
|
Jun 8 22:13 UTC 2005 |
i 0wn you, nharmon
|
nharmon
|
|
response 285 of 299:
|
Jun 9 01:46 UTC 2005 |
Bring it, tough guy.
|
naftee
|
|
response 286 of 299:
|
Jun 9 05:36 UTC 2005 |
no thanks; i try to stay away from gay people
|
cross
|
|
response 287 of 299:
|
Jun 9 12:07 UTC 2005 |
Marcus Watts wrote it. I don't know what license it's under.
|