Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
Lenix!
Sexy! 11%
Terrorism! 22%
Disreputable! 0%
Poor hygiene! 22%
Irrelevant! 44%

Votes: 9

 complaint

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Apr 22, 2002
 Comments:
Today, I opened a window to the Adequacy, only to see one 'detikon' in the 'My Online Buddies' sidebar.
diaries

More diaries by nathan
Bartok violin concerto
religion has failed us.
addition to previous diary (sorry)
Why girls are better than boys
tangential point off h.a.'s recent diary
why boys and girls are different
new job!
objectivist club
Another Friday night
some light reading
the opposite sex
hey, alprazolam,
jerkcity
g**k math is not hard.
liberalism
why?
hedonism
should women?
a new threat
wiccan woes
is Christianity theistically monistic?
give me advice.
Canada rules!
Burma Shave!
do some atheists hate religion?
I highly, highly disapprove of this. If it were left to me, I would be able to handle the social disapproval that accompanies associating with known Lenixists. Lenixists are usually fairly drab on their own, but their provocative opinions give one a delightful frisson of danger; and, as a hiply sexy artist-intellectual, living on the edge that way is second nature to me.

Still, as Milton wrote, 'no man is an island.' I have responsibilities. If my friends, students, colleagues, and family were to be endagered by my association with Lenixists, I would never be able to forgive myself. I feel as though, if I am perceived as associating myself with underworld elements, I will be betraying innocents in my personal life. I have no wish to link people close to me to terrorism.

Is an editorial intervention possible?

       
Tweet

No man is an island, (none / 0) (#1)
by because it isnt on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 02:39:12 AM PST
unless his name is Madagascar (© Phil Kay).

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got an unfunny pretense at whinging and moaning to keep up.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
I hear you. (none / 0) (#2)
by RobotSlave on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 03:40:43 AM PST
Nathan:

I enjoy the roustabout, hurly-burly nature of the Diaries as much as any man, but I do realize that the uncorrected and incoherent spew that clings to the Adequacy, just as surely as a frothy sea foam collects on our wild, rocky, untamed ocean shores in the wake of a storm, will, inevitably, comprise a hazard to those less accustomed to the quick and careful scavenging of the intellectual flotsam and jetsam that collects on these rough beaches.

I feel that if we wish to protect our nearest and dearest from the (sometimes unwitting) terrorist impulse expressed here, our only recourse is to insert honest and informative links as soon as the evil rears its despicable head, so as to plainly reveal the true motivations of the villains behind such vile propaganda.

Unfortunately, the most estimable editorial body presently in existence is completely overwhelmed with the suppression of "trolls," and thus has but scant resource available to combat the seemingly earnest yet utterly sinister forces in our midst.

If we were deemed capable, I know that you and I would volunteer our services in an instant, but it would appear that we have not passed muster, or perhaps posses some unseen defect, some invisible flat foot, that keeps us from doing our duty. I can only hope that this last, dire, affliction is not our lot, and that we are instead simply marking a labored time in an unseen yet meticulous series of trials for our eventual certification as vested guardians of the Adequate interest.

Soldier on then, dear chap! We'll have Jerry on the run by high summer, I'm sure of it!


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Score 1: Thesaurus-led (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 05:47:36 AM PST



Actually, it was alcohol-led. (none / 0) (#6)
by RobotSlave on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 09:41:00 AM PST
It's not my fault if you don't encounter the big words often enough for them to occur to you when you write.

As there actually weren't many difficult or unusual words in my post, I think it's likely that you objected to the sentence structure more than the vocabulary, but lacked the wit to make such a distinction, let alone compose an appropriate rejoinder.

Now be a good little urchin, and tell us what you've seen on the television lately.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Let me guess? (none / 0) (#7)
by tkatchev on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 10:11:22 AM PST
Poke'mon?


--
Peace and much love...

 
The ponceometer is way off the scale. (none / 0) (#8)
by because it isnt on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 10:57:00 AM PST
if you don't encounter the big words

I know (no, not "know", that's far too proletarian. i know, how about "je suis au courant") you are a condescending thesaurus-swallower, but your original message could be summarised in less than 60 words. You deliberately chose to pad it out (ouch! how vulgar! "pad it out"? i would insist on no less than "accentuate your original piece") with flowery waffle.

Let's try writing your post again to convey information rather than to act as a stage for you to strut back and forth on:

Nathan:

I like the Diaries too, but there's obviously a lot of trolly rubbish in them. If the editors catch any trolls, they'll show them up for what they are, but the trolls outnumber the editors.

We should help the editors! Obviously, we can't be editors ourselves because we're too damn lazy.

You see how much clearer it is? Now, would you prefer to give your readers a clean path through your work, or do you want them to tangle their feet in shrubbery?
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Intended audience? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by RobotSlave on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 11:46:49 AM PST
Let's sit down and think about this, Mr. Isn't.

Who do you suppose my comment was meant to appeal to?

If it was meant for the dull-witted, then I must admit the form of address was poorly chosen.

If it was meant for advocates of "plain english" or thumpers of Strunk & White, then clearly it was meant to be provocative and controversial.

Now, who else do you suppose I might have had in mind when I stitched that boozey remark together, Mr. "I say you're lazy even though you have yet another article up on the front page while I've never ever been able to get anything of my own published here?"

Don't strain yourself. I wouldn't want to tear you away from your elite team of music piracy software developers.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Let me tell you something. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by tkatchev on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 11:59:45 AM PST
Art is in the empty spaces, dude.


--
Peace and much love...

Art? (none / 0) (#13)
by RobotSlave on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 12:12:10 PM PST
Who said anything about Art?

Tell me more, Ivan dude.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

In that case, (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by tkatchev on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 12:31:24 PM PST
You are a mere utilitarian cog in the information business, and should be downsized because your methods of information dissemination inefficient and unprogressive.

Have a nice and productive day.




--
Peace and much love...

 
Meta-analysis. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by because it isnt on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 02:33:30 AM PST
Who do you suppose my comment was meant to appeal to?

You obviously can't read. I have already labelled your comment as a mating call, presumably to the other bourgeois God-hating liberalists.

Tkatchev said it best -- it's only logorrhea if you don't get paid for it, otherwise it's a solid business plan.

Mr. "I say you're lazy even though you have yet another article up on the front page while I've never ever been able to get anything of my own published here?"

I smell blood...
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Think harder. (none / 0) (#19)
by RobotSlave on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 02:07:12 PM PST
I didn't say it would be easy.

You've forgotten something, of course.

But that music piracy software won't write itself. Perhaps your time would be better spent on that?


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

clue (none / 0) (#20)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 02:11:39 PM PST
The answer is in some diary thread somewhere.

Ooh! Random insinuations! (none / 0) (#21)
by because it isnt on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 02:20:36 AM PST
Face it, I haven't got a hope in hell of working out which diary thread is meant to be relevant. They all are.

In the meantime, we are 1037 games down. Most fun of all, we've had congratulatory telegrams from Andrew Barnabas, Allister Brimble, Barry Leitch and Rick Hoekman of late (you know - the actual composers, without whom this music would never have existed, but obviously not the copyright holders because they signed those rights away for a pot of money), telling us what great people we are for making this resource available, in such an easily navigatable format.

But enough about me. You keep doing your charming monkey-dance here at Adequacy, and I'll keep throwing you peanuts. Deal?
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

clue #2 (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 10:12:29 AM PST
Who do you suppose my comment was meant to appeal to?

Well, who was it? Hint: Ben Reid's diary. Duh.

Re: your pretence (none / 0) (#23)
by because it isnt on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 10:55:31 AM PST
Who do you suppose my comment was meant to appeal to? Well, who was it? Hint: Ben Reid's diary. Duh.

Your comment has nothing to do with either religion or trading places. Once again, you lose. Stop trying to pull my leg. You never had a grandiose, planned-in-advance reason for your empty posturing, and you never will. Good day.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

sorry chum (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 12:57:06 AM PST
You totally missed the point. That's ok, there will be more. Life is long. (As far as I know, the Slave does not resort to anonymous trollopery.)

 
Crime of association... (none / 0) (#4)
by The Mad Scientist on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 08:13:49 AM PST
...died with McCarthy.

Or am I wrong?

You're either for us or against us, Ivan. (none / 0) (#9)
by elenchos on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 11:17:59 AM PST
(nt)


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

You made a mistake in the subject of your post. (none / 0) (#10)
by tkatchev on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 11:35:05 AM PST
That is a quote copyright by the democratically-elected Dictator Bush the Second.

On a lighter note, you can be proud to be the second People's Democratic Republic to have executive power appointed by hereditary rule.


--
Peace and much love...

Constitutional Republic. (none / 0) (#18)
by JoePain on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 06:33:43 AM PST



 
When I look at you... (none / 0) (#14)
by The Mad Scientist on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 12:20:19 PM PST
...I see being against you is the more appealing choice.

The same applies to Shrubya.

 
yuck. (none / 0) (#5)
by tkatchev on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 09:16:11 AM PST
"Artist-intellectual"?

Do you really sport a hip little goatee, or am I confused?


--
Peace and much love...

hiply SEXY thank you (none / 0) (#16)
by nathan on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 07:53:29 PM PST
Yes, I have a goatee, and I wear a beret and dark glasses.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.