It means lurkers should start commenting already, of course.
Indeed. Hear that, lurkers? After all, only chatting with strangers helps, and the regulars aren't strangers anymore.
"So true" seems like a really lame comment. But still, so true.
In supporting others in e-mail, the lurkers support themselves.
Lurkers, you are only hurting yourselves. (shakes head) It's science!
I'm a lurker these days. I'm no longer convinced the world wants my opinion on everything.
i recalled how i attended LM's concert at the madison square garden, all nyc latino population was there i guess, so people were moving constantly, singing together, dancing and only the section where i sat didn't dance for some reason
the lady who was sitting next to me offered her binoculars so that i could see the stage
afterwards i imagined the reason they didn't dance was me watching them perhaps
the young korean couple i met when was going out of the place were only other asian people i saw there cz
i mean when i lurk it's for the community, to not bother without much need
What about surfing for pornography unsuccessfully?
9: Click, click, masturbate click, click.
I'm no longer convinced the world wants my opinion on everything.
One thing I've always liked about online conversations is the variety of roles that are available. You can be a discussion-sparker, breadcrumb-dropper, instigator, peacemaker. You can share opinons, add links and trivia, or play a quasi-geisha role* in facilitating and encouraging others' contributions. You can be a flirt, you can be an activist, you can be a troll or a jerk.
It's nice to see this research (although it doesn't seem all that different from the informal papers I was hearing about in the mid '90s). I do think that having more avenues for young people to explore a variety of social roles is a good thing, regardless of the source.
Now you young texters stop staring at your hands and look up when you're walking across my lawn!
*Based on my understanding of the term; I don't have good cites so am happy to be educated if anyone knows a better term for what I'm describing.
You can be an activist,
And you can be a flirt.
You can be a troll,
Or you can be a jerk.
8: Who's LM?
The first names I can think of are Luka Modric, Loren Mazzacane Connors, and Leonard Maltin. No help there.
You can read another's post
And spot the unintended rhymes
And then you've got a little song
To while away the time
For many people, the threshhold between lurking and commenting seems to be more around "no longer convinced the world will impose sanctions on me for offering my opinion." And then they say something wrong and get banned.
No no, that was part of a post-Tupac radical experiment with scansion.
...oh all right.
And then they say something wrong and get banned nosflow red-pencils their comment.
You can be a little bitch,
Or you can play the fool;
Just don't ever start to think
It really makes you cool.
(Too off-message?)
Nah, GB is right; it was totally unintended. It took neb's carving to reveal the facets of the gem tchotchke.
And then they say something wrong ungrammatical and get non-seriously banned and realize failing is not the end of the world! Especially on the Internet! And lo, they are a participant forevermore, even when they have a third baby or move to Narnia or fall in love.
Yeah, love takes precedence.
Thanks a lot, Josh. That's what I get for taking time to do the HTML.
I don't doubt it was unintended but was it not also precisely thus hidden? Plus "hidden" works better.
Further to 21: Although neb appears to be slipping. Did you not notice the spelling error in my 11, young man?
24: Lurkers also have to get over their fear of being pwned.
For many people, the threshhold between lurking and commenting seems to be more around "no longer convinced the world will impose sanctions on me for offering my opinion."
Ah, so true. (Of course the world wants my opinions. Why else would have it created me?)
||
Not that anyone cares, but leaving town all weekend was apparently the wisest move possible. I missed all sorts of weird roommate drama. My only mistake: not staying away for a bit longer, so as to avoid the tail end of it.
|>
Örebro, bitches, ÖREBRO!
I (largely) lurk not for fear of pwnage but because I'm in the completely wrong time zone to participate in meaningful discussion, and because I have a nasty habit of jumping in and then not checking the blog for ages. This is, sadly, not really conducive to conversation.
But, since my mental health apparently requires it, I felt it necessary to delurk just now. Hi everyone!
Hi, what time zone is that? There are Europeans and New Zealanders who manage to hurl abuse at talk to each other. Could you have discursive one on one conversations with alameida?
(One of the Americans will wake up and give you a fruit basket shortly, which you can take home to the twilight zone.)
Middle of Australia - so it's about 3-4 hours off of New Zealand, I think. If there is anybody from China here, that would be about the same.
I'm good at hurling abuse, though. Less good at talking.
It's kind of nice, though, because I wake up and there is a whole days' worth of conversation waiting for me.
Geez, you going to let someone else get a comment in edgewise here?
Forza, f' you.
That's a conversational opener. Are you in Alice, then?
Good morning! Did HP let you sleep in today?
Nope! I've been up for about three hours. Over the weekend, around 10 am Jammies and I would look at each other and say "It's not three in the afternoon, is it," because it felt like the day had been so long already.
I'd comment more, but much of the time someone else has already said what I wanted to say. And far better too. I could pile on I suppose, but that seems superfluous.
W. Breeze: back to you, mate. I'm not in Alice. Same time zone, though, I think: Adelaide.
And now, g'night to y'all. Or good morning, as the case may be. It's my bedtime.
Clearly the other reason I lurk is because I can't figure out how to make a proper comment. 52 was me.
I'm practically a lurker nowadays.
I have no wit, and I don't know the html code to strikeout.
Also, it's 12 hours after the original post, and no one has commented for at least two hours.
Not to mention the risk of grammatical errors and pwnage.
Back to the dungeon go I.
I commented within the last half hour!
Inspired by 55, I'm using, for the first time in my life, html tags. If this looks wrong, please excuse my first experimentattempt.
Doesn't it mean that you guys need more pornography for the lurkers?
the html code to strikeout
<strike></strike>, but <s></s> also works here.
The tags aren't so bad, but I can never remember the special character codes. I even have places like this bookmarked too.
However, there aren't yet any characters provided to properly spell Led Zeppelin's 4th album. Is that in Web 2.0?
This is my second attempt at html tags. Let's see if it is less screwed up works better now that I have realized you need to use a little slash thing to close the tag.
THIS IS MY LAST AND FINAL ATTEMPT TO USE EMBELLISHMENTS
Thanks, Mo. I feel like I'm writing in the New Yorker now.
Once again, few share my joy when I discover new things. Just like when I figured out there was a singer named Morrissey who should not be confused with Jim Morrison of the Doors.
Moby, you're just awesome. If this was 1999, you'd so get a job as an ΗΤML “prögrammer”
66: Oh, so it was good for you too?
50: Three extra hours of work! Productivity!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. If only. (Jr got me up at 5am.)
1999 is when I started my first Roth IRA. Since the balance is back to what it was then, I'm feeling young again.
61. Bløødy Hell! It's the fücking Dånes!
- Æþelræd Unræd
Thanks for that link, Mo.
Wow, I really do feel better when I comment. Thanks guys!
I think 63 was actually posted by Pokey the Penguin.
This thread got typographically interesting from comment 241 on until dad^h^h^h ogged, came in and shut it down. You can still make out some of the damage fun at the link. I actually grabbed the original html source before ogged stepped in, and still have it on my hard disk at home.
Oggie-Daddy being the foot from that thread
284: [10:31 PM] You have until comment 300 to play with. Knock yourselves out. Don't try to wander into any other threads, either.
306: [10:42 PM] And now that I don't have to babysit you lot, I'm going offline. Tell it to the wind!
Is there an Unfogged FAQ?
How does one move from lurker status?
How does one move back to lurker status?
Does it depend on quality, frequency, or quantity?
Blog comments should flow like a river. So, length and discharge.
Don't forget the LB pseud evaluation process.
Lurking here certainly seems harmful to my self-esteem, but I haven't been able to stop after 3+ years. There are a few reasons why I rarely comment, but mostly I feel too slow, too thin-skinned, and fear my convictions are too flaccid and poorly fleshed-out to dare wade into the fray.
Woot! two years since my last comment! I am on a role! My lurkitude is unmatched and unbounded... oops.
82: Then just write glibly and without conviction—on Unfogged as in life, if you want to play it safe. I can't help you with the slow-wittedness, though.
82: You've already got a passable pseud. What else do you need other than the ability to italicize?
If toops, Ukko, and Forza all join together under one pseudonym, they could get the ball, or critical mass as it were, rolling toward full commenter status.
I can help you with the slow-wittedness. If you like, when you make slow-witted comments, I could critique them, showing where you missed the funnier alternatives and suggesting reasons for the deficiency. A few rounds of that should turn anyone into quite a funny person.
87: Or a quivering wreck of self-doubt.
There are lots of quick-witted people here, and I would only take a comment in the directions I could think of. It might be a faster learning experience if several of the funny people here were to analyze slow-witted comments, suggesting improvements. It would be like a panel discussion or a seminar.
'toops' spelled backwards is 'spoot'!
89: So, like graduate school? Nobody deserves that.
showing where you missed
Women just can't do interpersonal criticism, they're not very good at it in general.
Megan's right, the world needs more group critiques, especially like the kind you see in art school. Or maybe the Cultural Revolution.
I think there should be an event where a person sits naked in front of a group of people who critique their body, offering helpful suggestions for improvement.
Rob, I thought your Cultural Revolution reference was a little easy, but you've really got something with that naked critique idea. Have you considered giving each participant a magic marker that they can use to highlight problem areas?
86: Thanks. My pseud was actually bestowed upon me in earliest childhood by my mother, who has a penchant for goofy, apt nicknames. I've shown my face at a couple of the LA meetups though, so I guess I'm not a total stranger to everyone.
By the way, hello to Halford, jms, DE, BH, k-sky, et al.
I think there should be an event where a person sits naked in front of a group of people who critique their body, offering helpful suggestions for improvement.
I hear that Obamacare will include a pared down version of this sort of thing. Specifically, the focus will be on reducing halitosis. That's right: Breath Panels.
92: Or golf. What with glands interferring with the swing and all.
94: Thanks Bave. I thought your comment about easiness was too facile, but I really liked the marker reference and the way it indirectly let me know that my idea wasn't actually original.
Have you thought about shaving your back?
Bave may be easy, but he's not facile.
98.2: I have disposable razors with hollow handles. To get the hard to reach parts of my back, I shove a pencil into the handle and thus get the reach I need.
93.2 I tried that, but got no useful critique. Everybody on the bus just threatened to call the cops.
102: The critique was implicit.
Yes, but too general to be useful.
56: Ah, see, that might be part of the problem. I've always thought I was two hours behind the last comment.
105: Then why does nobody call the cops when I ride the bus shirtless?
106. Yes, this thing seems to run on Mountain time. Presumably the server is buried in a disused cold war bunker deep inside some inaccessible cavern where it is forever guarded by Unf, Labs and Bob with laser canon.
106: No, this time you seem to be three hours behind.
108: I still use LASER, in deference to the acronym.
People should just set their clocks to Mountain Time.
For the reasons explained in the MMWB song, MST, among others.
|| Quick! Academics and other miscellaneous smart people, please tell me if the following is consistent with the capitalization rules you are familiar with:
Capitalize words in a hearing or title, including the initial word and any word that immediately follows a colon. Do not capitalize articles, conjunctions, and prepositions when they are four or fewer letters unless they begin the hearing or title or immediately follow a colon. Verbs are capitalized, even if they are short (Is, to Be, Are).
This is terribly important in an utterly petty sort of way.|>
(After the colon but before "This" was supposed to be a block quote. I just wanted the lurkers to feel less threatened by the html prowess the rest of you people flaunt.)
SOUNDS RIGHT, BUT I HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO OVER CAPITIALIZE.
Is there no Blue Book rule on this?
I shove a pencil into the handle
But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
That is the Blue Book rule. The capitalization of "is, are, to be" seems off to me. Truthfully, as long as people don't insist on using ALLCAPS (I'm looking at you, Moby), I don't have any strong feelings. But I want my return snipe to be as thorough and accurate as possible...
Then why does nobody call the cops when I ride the bus shirtless?
Maybe it's not apparent you're shirtless until you start shaving?
That is the correct rule as far as I know.
I'm as sick of the Blue Book as it is possible to be for someone who has never opened one. They should really warn people who get on law review. Something like, "Your spouse or partner will not want to hear about this for more than 15 minutes a week."
If the BB isn't good enough, you think a cite to Unfogged.com is going to be persuasive?
118: When I was in North Carolina, I just shaved a big '3' and never had any problems.
I figured one of the academics would tell me "MLA says..." or the like. I hate the Blue Book.
If the BB isn't good enough, you think a cite to Unfogged.com is going to be persuasive?
Considering how many lawyers we have here, maybe.
I don't capitalize forms of 'to be' in headings. Unless it's the only uncapitalized word.
My BB doesn't mention verbs at all -- you're probably using one of those new editions I've kept off my lawn -- and I prefer to read the exception for articles, conjunctions, and prepositions as sufficient warrant to avoid capitalizing 'to be.'
(Cupla means more than one error at a time.)
Sure, capitalize Is. What more essential verb is there?
Similarly, capitalize Ain't.
According to the American Psychological Association's Publication Manual (5th edition), in titles you should capitalize all major words. This includes all verbs (including linking verbs), nouns, adjectives, adverbs and pronouns. Also, capitalize the first word and the first word after a colon. (Page 95.)
Moby, once a person is a lawyer, they're not really allowed to discuss much of anything about their work. Spouses of law students can help in the training for this by reminding the student that any shop talk is out of bounds.
The rules in 112 are basically the Chicago rules, except: The latter would have articles, conjunctions, and prepositions in lowercase regardless of length. Also, prepositions should be uppercase when they're part of phrasal verbs.
Don't know what the MLA says, and don't know what the Blue Book is, but the Chicago Manual of Style 8.167 says all prepositions (regardless of length) should be in lowercase unless they're stressed; that articles, coordinate (but not subordinate) conjuntions, and an infinitive's "to" should be in lowercase; and that the first and last word should always be capitalized. There are enough variations of these rules that what matters most is consistency within a document or set of documents.
Unless of course this is all going to be judged by an ill-informed pedant who learned in third grade that there is one true way, in which case you should either (1) bribe that person's secretary to learn what the one true way is taken to be, or (2) take your chances.
"but the Chicago" s/b "but Chicago"; alas.
The Bluebook is the most annoying style guide in the world.
I hate the Blue Book a lot -- it is the least comprehensible reference book I've ever encountered. Whenever I try to look up a citation form, I end up looking at an example which is significantly different from what I need, such that I have to guess how to alter it to do what I want.
Other people don't seem to have nearly as much trouble with it as I do, so it may just be a mental block. Mostly, once I get off the beaten path citation-wise, I just keep it internally consistent and figure that no one's all that worried about the details.
131: Yes, for years I thought that attorney-client privilege was something my mom invented for her own reasons.
But the blue pages section of the BB are worth it. How else would you know that on Apr. 1, 1982 all cases pending in the US District Court for the District of the Canal Zone were transferred to the E.D. La.? Or how to cite a Navajo statute? Or the Transvaal Supreme Court reporter (in use between 1902 and 1909)?
Or, for that matter, the Extravagants of John XXII? (Which are not in the Common Extravagants).
If someone has committed all three of the totally unrelated definitions of "barratry", do they cancel each other out in four-dimensional fraud space?
Huh. I only knew definition 2.
The Scots have a fourth definition.
Isn't the third definition the same as simony?
It's at least pretty close to simony.
Along the same lines, I've never been able to pin down whether mopery was ever a non-jocular criminal offense.
I think the Bluebook is pretty straightforward. The trick is to remember that it contains arbitrary rules made up by law students. It does not have to make sense.
Plus, further to 139, mostly all I care about are the blue pages.
I think the Bluebook is pretty straightforward.
This confirms everything I've always thought about you.
My dad's favorite, archaic criminal offense was 'lacking visible means of support.'
Mopery just sounds like a synonym for loitering or vagrancy, or possibly the "cruising" which you could be busted for by driving past the same intersection more than twice back in my hometown.
Where are the wandering mendicants on this board to tell us if they've ever been charged with mopery?
Now that I think of it 'lacking visible means of support' was probably just part of the definition for vagrancy. There were various other people (all other lawyers) who he thought could be convicted if that law was still on the books.
142 -- Blackstone spelled that one with an E, 4 Bl. at 134, while Justice Story, in Marcardier v. Chesapeake Ins. Co., 12 U.S. 39 (1814), spelled the one in meaning 1 with an A.
Someone could check the Common Extravagants for item 3, but I'm headed for lunch.
I think the Bluebook is pretty straightforward.
Richard Posner disagrees. Richard A. Posner, Goodbye to the Bluebook 53U. Chi. L. Rev. 1343 (1986).
(Yes, I know there is supposed to be a comma before the 53. I'm rebelling.)
The Bluebook is like the tax code. It is what it is. Madness lies down the path of trying to make it all make sense (though a lot of it actually does).
I know that it's important to have clear and consistent citation rules, but isn't it a little absurd to insist that only certain types of words can follow an open parenthesis?
Speaking of the tax code, if the IRS fails to register that we sent them a reply one more time, I'm going to have no choice but to become a libertarian flat-taxer.
I just keep it internally consistent and figure that no one's all that worried about the details.
This is pretty much my entire attitude toward life. I didn't become a lawyer because I figured the law was one of those areas where the "eh, it's just petty detail" attitude wouldn't fly.
159 -- We've cured you of that, though, right?
I am all about petty detail. I didn't become a lawyer because lawyers are jerks (present company excluded, of course).
161: So you went to graduate school to avoid jerks? That's like going to Kansas to avoid wheat.
The Blue Book has no capitalized headings at all.
I really wouldn't call the Blue Book "zionist agit-prop". But what do I know, really?
I just keep it internally consistent and figure that no one's all that worried about the details
On things where the Bluebook is vague, that's what I do, too. For me, the point of follwing the Bluebook is so that a judge or law clerk does not fault us for what they view as sloppy work. Such things should not make a difference but they can.
The Bluebook is like the tax code. It is what it is. Madness lies down the path of trying to make it all make sense (though a lot of it actually does).
The difference being that the Tax Code is, in fact, law.
For me, the point of following the Bluebook is so that a judge or law clerk does not fault us for what they view as sloppy work. Such things should not make a difference but they can.
As long as you are internally consistent, no judge is going to punish your client depending on whether or not you inserted a space between F. and 3d. As long as you are internally consistent, you don't look sloppy.
As long as you are internally consistent, no judge is going to punish your client depending on whether or not you inserted a space between F. and 3d. As long as you are internally consistent, you don't look sloppy.
I wish I agreed with that. My life would be a touch simpler. The more I practice, the more I come to the conclusion that judges decide cases--even legal issues--based on a wide array of things that should not matter but do.
This thread is making me wonder what my internal consistency is.
My internal consistency is oatmeal-like.
I wish I agreed with that. My life would be a touch simpler. The more I practice, the more I come to the conclusion that judges decide cases--even legal issues--based on a wide array of things that should not matter but do.
Or, I will grant that they decide cases for some pretty idiosyncratic reasons. So why make yourself crazy looking up whether or not to italicize "cf." when odds are the color of your tie will make just as much difference.
(Also, I am really pissy today and wish I hadn't quit smoking. Again.)
I correct my student's footnotes, even the commas. Does this make me a petty jerk?
That should be students', of course.
171: Correcting your students' references makes you a dedicated instructor. Correcting me makes you a petty jerkk.
So you went to graduate school to avoid jerks?
No, I went to graduate school to get a job. I chose the type of graduate school to go to in part by comparing the number of jerks per capita in various professions.
what my internal consistency is
Guts. And black stuff. And about fifty Slim Jims.
I tell my students that I don't care how they format their references, as long as it is internally consistent and contains all the needed information.
No, I went to graduate school to get a job.
I wish you more luck with that plan than I had.
173 makes precisely the distinction upon which my present pissiness is predicated.
176: Which they're also largely incapable of.
update to 177: Just to be clear, I have a job and one that I mostly enjoy. But, usually when people talk about going to school to get a job, they usually mean one that pays better than they could have gotten otherwise.
I went to graduate school to read blogs.
But, usually when people talk about going to school to get a job, they usually mean one that pays better than they could have gotten otherwise.
Or at least one that's more interesting and less soul-killing.
Also, I don't think anything bothers me more than putting footnotes on the inside of punctuation.
179: I suppose it would be petty to suggest that "of" would have been better placed at the start of the sentence?
183: When I was in college, we had a party and one of our guests became violently sick from drinking too much. This was an old house and the cold-air return for the furnace was large wooden grate set in the floor. This grate was where he puked. After puking, he said, "Don't worry. I hit the drain." Ever since, that has been my baseline for most bothersome, baring anything that isn't a felony.
186: Probably so. I don't teach grammar, I teach footnotes.
I'm not familiar with the Blue Book, but the only bit of formatting that I get really hung up on is quotation marks and other punctuation. AP style has quotation marks after periods, commas, question marks and such no matter what, but GPO style has quotation marks before those other punctuation unless it's intentionally part of the quoted material. Both blanket rules lead to occasional situations that make no sense, but a rule that states "use quotation marks sensibly" would be very complicated and look inconsistent even when it's not.
Help.
191: I'm just happy to know that there is some other "official" rule contrary to AP! I'm not violating the rule, I'm following GPO! (What does GPO stand for, anyway?)
Baring anything, that isn't a felony.
Punctuation outside of quotation marks is standard in British usage.
Er, uh, 192. That's what I get for trying to be snarky.
Actually, don't answer my question in 192. I've decided I'll be happiest believing it stands for Government Punctuation Office. "I'm sorry Idiot Partner. But the Government Punctuation Office has dictated that the question mark go outside the quotation marks in that sentence."
197 before reading 195, for the record.
191 -- The Bluebook resolves this correctly, saying that periods and commas go inside, and other marks outside, unless part of the quoted material.
I personally prefer the HWS standard.
183: What about quotes?
What about air quotes?
No evidence of Mopery as an actual crime, although Embracery was punished, according to Blackstone, by fine, imprisonment, and, for the embracee, perpetual infamy.
Don't you "mean" air "quotes [sic]"?
202:
Who is deciding that the Blue Book is correct?
Law students?
Or Strunk & White?
Or The World According to Carp?
Embracery is when you make one thing into a pair of things, right?
That's called cutting in half.
If you do it right, embracery can make a pair of things into three or more things, at least one of whom will persist in waking at 1:00 a.m. long after that shit is supposed to stop.
Someone ought to explain to Avalon (and then to me) to to fix the F and S thing.
EMBRACERY is an attempt to influence a jury corruptly to one fide by promifes, perfuafions, entreaties, money, entertainments, and the like. The punifhment for the perfon embracing is by fine and imprifonment; and, for the juror fo embraced, if it be by taking money, the punifhment is (by divers ftatutes of the reign of Edward III) perpetual infamy, imprifonment for a year, and forfeiture of the tenfold value.
212: So, the defense attorney wasn't hitting on me?
214: It sort of depends on what s/he was using to perfuade you, doesn't it?
"Life, liberty and the purſuit of happiness"
216: Promifes. I got nothing but promifes.
You could be sentenced to perpetual infamy for Maintenance, as well.
Thefe pefts of civil fociety that are perpetually endeavouring to difturb the repofe of their neighbours, and officioufly interfering in other men's quarrels, even at the hazard of their own fortunes, were feverely animadverted on by the Roman law: "qui improbe coeunt in alienam litem, ut quicquid ex communicatione in rem ipfius redactum fuerit, inter eos communicaretur, loge Tulia de vi privata tenentur" and they were punifhed by the forfeiture of a third part of their goods, and perpetual infamy. Hitherto alfo muft be referred the provifion of the ftatute 32 Hen. VIII. c. 9. that no one fhall fell or purchafe any pretended right or title to land, unlefs the vendor hath received the profits thereof for one whole year before fuch grant, or hath been in actual poffeffion purchafor and vendor fhall each forfeit the value of fuch land to the king and the profecutor.The infamy isn't looked exactly 'perpetual' just now.
I confeƒs; my eſſes are meſſes.
224.last to everything www.xxx.com where xxx is any group of characters with a length of 1 or more.
.last, nothing! The whole internet became a lot clearer once I knew UNG was German.
If I knew how to do umlauts, I'd add one to the UNG, just to make it clearer to all. And pain, I will never put the negativity behind me. Never, I say!
Put the negativity behind you!
I once knew a negative man from a Negativland.
There was some Bluebook rule that they really wanted to instill about not shortening the first word in a case, but the Book had just changed the rule that year.
Also, California is stupid (or more likely just guild protectionists), because they have their own stupid citation method.
Wasn't there some alternative citation book that was being proposed, but it never caught on? Maybe cause it wasn't put out by the editors of the Harvard Law Review.
Wait, UNG is German?
What other key bits of information am I totally missing?
232.1: ÜNG is German.
232.2: Up is down. Also, black is white. And Satan is our Lord.
86 (suddenly it's relevant again!): Toopsukkoforza sounds like a cool pseud. Like Dr. Seuss' version of an Italian name.
The U'dariat has almost as many connections to Germany as to Pittsburgh. Someone ought to get a grant and figure out why this would be.
233: Oh! Well, that's no problem. Is Satan another name for this Ogged person I keep hearing about? Cos that would explain a lot too.
235: Someone ought to get a grant and figure out why this would be.
Germans are notorious punctuators.
max
['But the war is should be behind us now.']
And maybe more Texans than either, if you count transplants . . .
231: The University of Chicago adopted its own manual in the mid-80s that never caught on. The Association of Legal Writing Directors came out with another manual sometime thereafter which has had a bit more success and is taught in a healthy number of legal writing programs. I'd find a reference for you, but it's hard on the phone and I'm lazy.
157 Speaking of the tax code, if the IRS fails to register that we sent them a reply one more time, I'm going to have no choice but to become a libertarian flat-taxer.
That reminds me that I never got my refund from my state taxes. I wonder at what point I should start making calls and complaining.
Or I could just add it to the long list of "money that was owed me that I was too lazy to bother people about and thus lost forever".
I hear you get that all back in heaven and can use it for an upgrade to a suite.
241: If you had taken all the effort you put into making that list and redirected it toward getting some of that money, I bet a lot of those debts would be repaid by now!
241 -- You need to get some friends who aren't afraid to engage in a little barretry now and then.
245: Wow! I never read that read comment before. It's really great.
I see that both of the so-called "thoughtful conservatives" have disappeared for the most part. Ogged's machismo is sorely missed.
Wow. I had no idea read had been around that long.
a more comprehensive listing
But one that doesn't include me! Intolerable.
You're damn right I'm a genius level black american.
It did too, teo. You're a nice jewish boy.
Oh, never mind. I was confused as to which comment was being discussed.
heebie-geebie - a sorority girl
I am, am I?
253: That was right around the date of my prove-up, so I was understandably in good spirits back then.
257: Be happy with what you got. Some of us are over in the corner feeling slighted by read.
Not too long before 245, read had gone over to the dark side.
since Ogged is ED (emotionally distant, alas) and plagued with many and different gfs
may i ask you, [neb] w-lfs-n, to be an object of my next worshipmanship and dedicate to you my little and precious offerings from time to time and follow your linguistic guidance, please?
I missed that one first time round - Autobanned called me a lawyer!
That link is a great. There are an intimidatingly large number of fun-loving people here. What if you are an irritable, slightly disgruntled weirdo nerd? ... Although I see there are plenty of those, too.
262: Those all tend to blend together, is the problem.
Fun is mostly loved in the abstract.
262: A world in which I am described as fun-loving is a world with exceedingly relaxed standards.
I think the world of Unfogged commenters qualifies.
YOU'D BETTER KEEP HATING IT OR WE'LL TAKE YOUR DIPLOMA AWAY.
Not feeling the Auto-banned analysis.
265: Wouldn't it be 'exceeding unrelaxed'?
I omitted the 'ly' on purpose to show how relaxed I am.
269: So what you're saying is, may we ban him?
You went to grad school to get a job?
38: In any case, I'm here for you.
39: Touching.
Hott.
274: Heeeeeeeeeeeliuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum! Man, I haven't seen that in years. Awesome.
245 was much appreciated.
I'm another lurker; I feel too out of my intellectual depth to comment here. And since everyone knows each other, it makes it a bit awkward to just jump in. And then there's the fears of being pwned, and perpetual infamy.
277: Nonsense. Jump away. Getting pwned is just part of the fun.
Indeed. I'm talking to myself in the Willpower thread, we need people!
Stay visible, please. So far you're doing great.
But if you don't respond to earnest entreaties, we'll ban you.
Please don't worry about your intellectual depth. Someone will let you know if you've exceeded it.
Someone will let you know if you've exceeded it.
Megan, specifically.
Anyway, the catalog of commenters—"Funny anecdotes"? "Funny anecdotes"? Is that all I am?
No! Not me, goodness. I've already signed up for way too much, coaching new people on how to make comments funnier. Someone else is going to have to cover intellectual depth. Or, like we talked about, a committee of people could work on it.
And since everyone knows each other,
Really not so. I know a couple of people in person, know a bunch of others pretty well from talking to them online, but there are a lot of people here who I don't know anything personal at all about beyond the fact that they say stuff. If you wanted to, you too could achieve that status by starting to say stuff.
wow, it seems i've already reached perpetual infamy
always wanted my comments to disappear like ToS's
my apologies to all for any misrepresentation
bi could be a nice handle, it means i in my language, if to add in before visible
b/c i like to give names
What's a person gotta do to make the goddamn lists around here?
That's funny. I scrolled down further on that thread, and I'm already making idle threats about what will happen if I keep getting left off of lists. Clearly I have very modest goals in life, and yet I have failed to meet even those.
Thank you all, I feel so welcomed! And encouraged to say stuff. I feel healthier already. I will try to think of stuff to say in the future. When I'm not so tired.