0545: "Neutrality Schmeutrality"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
punkymonkey
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:57 pm UTC
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby punkymonkey » Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:31 pm UTC

aterimperator wrote:
screech wrote:On the other hand, if you WANT the money, then I believe the best option is to edit the pro-life and pro-choice group wiki pages both to mean you.

You might get flack for being hypocritical about the abortion issue but it's a million dollars!


This is genius, though it likely would not work due to the organizations not being defined by their wiki pages, just described.


mania wrote:For more chaos, make the deadline the end of the week or 1 hour after the last edit, whichever is later.


This is necessary, otherwise it will be apathy for 6 days followed by 1 day of intense editing. As an improvement, the end of the week or a pseudo random time between 5 minutes and 40 minutes after the last edit, whichever is later (this forces constant editing rather than an edit, followed by an edit 58 minutes later, followed by another edit 58 minutes later, etc.)


Who are you, aterimperator? :shock:
<wst> punkymonkey is actually punky. phew

User avatar
neoliminal
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby neoliminal » Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:18 pm UTC

JoshJ wrote:If the article doesn't exist, you count the number of words in the "this article does not exist" page.


Bogusarticlethatdoesnotexist
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Bogusarticlethatdoesnotexist in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

* Start the Bogusarticlethatdoesnotexist article or add a request for it.
* Search for "Bogusarticlethatdoesnotexist" in existing articles.
* Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

Other reasons this message may be displayed:

* If a page was recently created here, it may not yet be visible because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes and try the purge function.
* Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternate capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.
* If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was my page deleted?.



Difficulty: what counts and what doesn't?


Word Count: 134
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0073YYXRC
Read My Book. Cost less than coffee. Will probably keep you awake longer.
[hint, scary!]

User avatar
vviipp
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:18 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, CA
Contact:

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby vviipp » Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:43 pm UTC

Hmm...
Would that include headings, wiki markup ,and the title?
For example, "Live 8", two words, you're all set.

User avatar
Iridos
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:58 am UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby Iridos » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:58 pm UTC

Did really everyone up to now miss that there are different language Wikipedias, not just an English one?
Supposing the event does have notability, there should not be *the* Wikipedia article on it, but at least two or three - up to the about 200 different languages that have "a Wikipedia".

Apropos "zero is even" - even if you'd say that "no article" translates into zero words... are you implying, that a non-existing article can be biased?
And thinking along these lines... would it really matter for the neutrality of the article on an event, if the article (or its word-count) has a certain consequence? Doesn't neutrality of an article mean that the object is described in an unbiased way? In my opinion it would be more problematic, because it's one of these articles on Wikipedia about Wikipedia, which always struck me as some type of mental masturbating...

I.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7573
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby phlip » Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:32 pm UTC

Iridos wrote:Apropos "zero is even" - even if you'd say that "no article" translates into zero words... are you implying, that a non-existing article can be biased?

Not the article itself, but the deletion debate will be... the delete crowd would be stuffed by pro-choicers wanting an easy win, the keep crowd would be stuffed by pro-lifers wanting to prevent that. The abortion debate could easily bias any given editor to one side or the other on the (ideally independent) question of whether the article is notable.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

Mr. Smiles
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby Mr. Smiles » Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:07 am UTC

Consider this: Is a nonexistent page's word count defined by the message that is displayed when you attempt to view it, or is the word count zero? If the article being non-existent can be considered wikipedia being neutral, and the message is odd, and zero is even, then at least we've achieved ambiguity.

FluffX
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:24 pm UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby FluffX » Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:31 am UTC

JoshJ wrote:If the article doesn't exist, you count the number of words in the "this article does not exist" page.


Bogusarticlethatdoesnotexist
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Bogusarticlethatdoesnotexist in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

* Start the Bogusarticlethatdoesnotexist article or add a request for it.
* Search for "Bogusarticlethatdoesnotexist" in existing articles.
* Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

Other reasons this message may be displayed:

* If a page was recently created here, it may not yet be visible because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes and try the purge function.
* Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternate capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.
* If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was my page deleted?.



Difficulty: what counts and what doesn't?


But this isn't the article. It's a message telling you that the article you are looking for doesn't exist. The actual article doesn't have a word count, because there is no actual article. If you can prove to me that something that doesn't exist can have any number of anything (leave religion out of this), I'll back. (Although I'll be smirking in the sidelines if anyone subsquesently proves that something that doesn't exist CAN'T have any number of anything.)

User avatar
Justinlrb
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:59 pm UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby Justinlrb » Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:56 am UTC

Oh no! is "it's" one word or two? what about cannot? another?
My new mission in life will be to edit all wikipedia articles so that they have unambiguous word counts. (just in case)

EngrBohn
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:08 pm UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby EngrBohn » Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:25 am UTC

halcyon1234 wrote:
EngrBohn wrote:I propose the article consist of: "It happened."
Semantically, it'd be hard to argue convincingly that there's any bias in that statement.
Lengthwise, it'd degenerate into the debate over whether 2 is odd or even.


I think you mean "whether 2 is prime or not".


:oops: I plead low caffeine count. I realized my error on the drive to work. (Note to self - NEVER post until after the second cup!)

To redeem myself, I have a new Cunning Plan. I shall fight evil with evil. "At a <blink>short</blink> press conference..." :twisted:

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby Random832 » Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:29 am UTC

FluffX wrote:
JoshJ wrote:If the article doesn't exist, you count the number of words in the "this article does not exist" page.
Difficulty: what counts and what doesn't?
But this isn't the article.

Even if you do use that, if it doesn't exist you don't know what the title would be. The hypothetical title appears three times in the text.

User avatar
GameFreak
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:01 pm UTC
Location: Internet

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby GameFreak » Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:55 am UTC

Leonsbuddydave wrote:All in favor of setting up and planning the aforementioned event?

I'm in!

I'm not really sure why but this is my new favorite comic. It just beats out 'Cat Proximity''.
Windows: Life without walls.
In a world without walls or fences, nobody would need windows or gates.


Xsera is coming!

User avatar
phillipsjk
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:09 pm UTC
Location: Edmonton AB Canada
Contact:

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby phillipsjk » Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:30 am UTC

EngrBohn wrote:To redeem myself, I have a new Cunning Plan. I shall fight evil with evil. "At a <blink>short</blink> press conference..." :twisted:


Cute, but the blink tag is evil in itself. I suppose it achieves the goal of being neutral, yet deterministic. (BHG would have to take a screenshot when his clock rolls over). Edit: Oops: that implies using a cached version of the page. If the page is loaded as the clock rolls over, it may always be "on" (I don't think the effect starts until the page finishes rendering).

Blink tag compatibility script

http://www.w3.org/Style/HTML40-plus-blink.dtd referenced by above.

Mozilla Bug 63458 - <blink> tag supported in standards mode

I just checked: The blink tag is not present in the HTML 2.0 or 3.2 standards either.
Did you get the number on that truck?

nomnomdom
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:48 am UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby nomnomdom » Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:21 am UTC

There would seem to be a couple of easy ways for wikipedia to handle this neutrally.

Since the topic of the article is just the article itself, the whole topic is original research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research) and not allowable under the notability guidelines. If the page is deleted, it has neither an even nor an odd number of words. NULL is not the same as zero - the value is simply undefined, and there is no winner.

If the article has to exist, then they could just lock the article and choose a winner using a predetermined random process. For example, the article could be edited to have an even number of words of the last digit of the closing DOW for that day is even. As long as the process is agreed to up front, it would be unbiased an fair.

User avatar
scikidus
Posts: 792
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:34 pm UTC
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby scikidus » Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:27 am UTC

May I suggest that instead of word count (wich seems to be rather controversial), the classhole use character count? It's far more reliable, although you'll have a lot of people suddenly arguing over British spelling over their favourite favorite words. ;)

Also, while everyone's arguing over the actual article, what about the surrounding articles? The main xkcd article contains no reference to this comic, but it does talk about "Wikipedian Protester."
Happy hollandaise!

"The universe is a figment of its own imagination" -Douglas Adams

User avatar
Delass
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:45 am UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby Delass » Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:08 am UTC

I dont think it would matter if 0 is even or if 0 is null and therefore neither, because people would be creating articles hoping to win it for their side. If wiki somehow stopped articles from being created, which I guess is possible, then it wouldn't work anyway.
"cover neutrally" implies they actually covered it. If there wasnt an article, then they didnt cover it neutrally, because they didnt cover it at all.

If the article was a jpeg, then you could go into the code and it would look something like this:
[img/wikiarticle.jpeg[img]
so it would either be 1 or 8 or 5 depending on the definition of a word.

Storm
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 4:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby Storm » Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:03 am UTC

I do apologize for skipping page 2 (I'm in a hurry!) but if it has not been suggested yet, why not use an article thats already in use? Same rules, same format but the xkcd article or the space elevators article?
Another great comic!
Three Quotes:
Spoiler:
"DON'T PANIC" - Douglas Adams
"All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost"- J.R.R. Tolkien
"This life is more than just a read through"- Red Hot Chili Peppers

Nydoc_Narcondys
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:08 am UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby Nydoc_Narcondys » Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:16 am UTC

The page should be locked with a disclaimer stating that Wikipedia will allow further edits only to be statements from the NRLC and the NARAL, each being a quote explaining why they think they should get the money. The quotes will be taken in simultaneous blind interviews so that Wikipedia will not be responsible for the final word count.


Regardless, the whole scheme is a red herring. The entry itself would not be a violation of the Wikipedia's neutrality policy because the standards only apply to the content of the entry and not to the word count. Even if Jimmy Wales decided to step in and say "Make the word count X," that would not be a violation of the policy. It would just mean that Jimmy Wales was biased.

DrBob
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:29 pm UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby DrBob » Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:38 pm UTC

I'm not quite sure what you can get away with on Wikipedia HTMLwise, but the following ideas occurred to me:

(1) Browser-dependent parity.
(2) <BLINK>?
(3) A script that keeps displaying new text as long as you keep scrolling. The number of words on the page is thus countably infinite, and has undefined parity.

Dr Bob

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby Random832 » Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:41 pm UTC

DrBob wrote:I'm not quite sure what you can get away with on Wikipedia HTMLwise, but the following ideas occurred to me:

(1) Browser-dependent parity.

Browser information is not accessible from within the page. But you can do it more or less at random (i.e. base it on what second the page was refreshed).

(2) <BLINK>?


css text-decoration works. I'd think that would just count as the text being present though, not it alternating between being there and not.

(3) A script that keeps displaying new text as long as you keep scrolling. The number of words on the page is thus countably infinite, and has undefined parity.


No scripts. And that's not even possible if you could do scripts.

User avatar
neoliminal
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby neoliminal » Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:49 pm UTC

Image still causes problems in word counts because you can either count the words in the image or count the "words" in the article... which someone pointed out might include the tags. But this is a problem because you have to then specify word count as on the page or in the edit screen.

There also needs to be clarification on how black hat would be counting the words. Someone suggested he would simply use wc, in which case the image works to create a paradox, but there's nothing stopping him from just counting the words by hand.

There is also a problem with the empty article argument in that since multiple titles can be used to create the article and be redirected, the redirection text may be counted allowing anyone to fudge the article in any direction they want with redirects.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0073YYXRC
Read My Book. Cost less than coffee. Will probably keep you awake longer.
[hint, scary!]

aterimperator
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:53 pm UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby aterimperator » Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:06 pm UTC

Mr. Smiles wrote:Consider this: Is a nonexistent page's word count defined by the message that is displayed when you attempt to view it, or is the word count zero? If the article being non-existent can be considered wikipedia being neutral, and the message is odd, and zero is even, then at least we've achieved ambiguity.


That may be the first time I've ever heard of ambiguity considered to be a desirable thing.

punkymonkey wrote:
aterimperator wrote:
mania wrote:For more chaos, make the deadline the end of the week or 1 hour after the last edit, whichever is later.

This is necessary, otherwise it will be apathy for 6 days followed by 1 day of intense editing. As an improvement, the end of the week or a pseudo random time between 5 minutes and 40 minutes after the last edit, whichever is later (this forces constant editing rather than an edit, followed by an edit 58 minutes later, followed by another edit 58 minutes later, etc.)

Who are you, aterimperator? :shock:


Just someone who takes more delight in the chaos than in whether or not wikipedia can actually remain unbiased. More improvements:

~Reverts are not considered edits (otherwise you could end up with a reversion war)
~At least part of the money is given to whomever last edited the page (after all, people's self interest is likely to cause more chaos than the abortion issue)
~possibly requiring that an edit only counts if words are added (otherwise 4 weeks of edits every 5 minutes could get boring)
~possibly requiring that edits only count if the words actually created sentences (keeps out script editing, though the chaos of scripts could be delightful as well)
~requiring that each sentence is unique within the article (no repeating of sentences)

User avatar
dennisw
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:09 am UTC
Location: Appearing pro se AND pro bono!
Contact:

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby dennisw » Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:14 pm UTC

It strikes me that this discussion of word counts, what constitutes a word, empty articles, etc. closely parallels the absurd arguments surrounding abortion (e.g. when life begins, whose rights prevail, etc.). If this article/event were to actually occur, it would degrade similarly into a situation consisting mostly of two sides arguing about two or more different things, while thinking they're arguing two sides of the same thing.

See also Citizen Ruth.
Try the Printifier for xkcd. You can now scale the comic between 50 and 150%.

I find these very useful: Common Errors in English Usage (web site) and Eats, Shoots & Leaves (book). You may, too.

e pluribus unum
Unleash unlicensed ungulates!

Aquarello
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:41 pm UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby Aquarello » Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:23 pm UTC

I have a simple solution: Make sure the article uses an odd number of hyphenated word-pairs. Let people argue over whether these are single words, or two words. In the meantime, keep the money.

marketdoctor
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:19 pm UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby marketdoctor » Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:59 pm UTC

I'd have set it up somewhere where you could get revenue for any banner ads that appear (paid by the appearance, NOT the click-through.) If you time it right, you could get more than your million back...wait, that was his plan all along, wasn't it?

User avatar
civver
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:59 pm UTC
Location: here

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby civver » Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:54 pm UTC

Boy this would be funny if I could stop thinking of the jackasses who would vandalize wikipedia articles over this.
Scientific knowledge is the heritage of all mankind.

-Abdus Salam, Pakistani physicist, won the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics for contributions to electroweak theory.

almightyze
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:06 am UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby almightyze » Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:19 am UTC

Anyone else inclined to believe that Randall is just being a dick now, especially since he is revered?
01010011 01110100 01101111 01110000 00100000
01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 01101001
01101110 01100111 00100000 01100010 01101001
01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00101110

Allah o akbar! Azadi!

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby Diadem » Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:36 am UTC

Mr. Smiles wrote:Consider this: Is a nonexistent page's word count defined by the message that is displayed when you attempt to view it, or is the word count zero? If the article being non-existent can be considered wikipedia being neutral, and the message is odd, and zero is even, then at least we've achieved ambiguity.

The length of an non-existing article is zero, for obvious reasons. It is also neutral. Something that does not exist can not be biased. Zero however is even, which is pro-choice. Ergo: Pro-choice is NPOV.

We can finally end the abortion debate. We have finally proven, mathematically, that the pro-choice side is right :)
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
neoliminal
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby neoliminal » Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:Something that does not exist can not be biased.


Here is where your logic is flawed. Ignoring the reporting of a significant event is, de-facto, biased.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0073YYXRC
Read My Book. Cost less than coffee. Will probably keep you awake longer.
[hint, scary!]

Pariah
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:19 am UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby Pariah » Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:26 am UTC

Had to register just for this. Have the article update itself by adding a word each time the page is accessed (be it viewing or editing).

User avatar
Wildcard
Candlestick!
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:42 am UTC
Location: Outside of the box

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby Wildcard » Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:02 am UTC

Well hello to MaJ and Skep on page one of this thread! Fancy seeing high rollers like yourselves out for a stroll on the non mafia portion of the forum. A bit of fresh air, what?[/off topic oblique plug for the mafia forum]

I think that someone of the opinion that the BHG should be made confused as to who to donate the money to could not, themselves, qualify as neutral. They care.

Thus it is truly impossible to make any sort of neutral article about it. You would have to care about it to make an article, and even the deletion, lack of creation, or prevention of the creation of the article would not be neutral as zero is an even number.

But since he didn't specify WHEN he would check the word count, he's probably just going to hold onto his cash and announce later that he'll donate the money in another week when the word count "settles down". Then do that again. And again. Because it will never, ever, settle down for any appreciable length of time.
There's no such thing as a funny sig.

User avatar
Ian Mantell
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:03 pm UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby Ian Mantell » Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:56 am UTC

politically incorrect facts, anyone?

The damn world is overcrowded already.

Ocean food reserves are dropping _too fast_.

There is a woman getting 6+8 children by purpose in the states.

And you still have time and reason to discuss abortion?
When did the participants decide this is more important than overpopulation destroying our planet? Was this decision based on a word count by any chance?

Surplus opinion because I already boil over: for all those lowercase victims still asking what for we need
space travel research. Because TO ESCAPE. From YOU MORONS.
"Solve problems on earth first"? STFU. THEY ARE NOT RESOLVABLE, as long as tards like them questioners walk on earth.

Does not seem related to the topic for you? Take one of those lower cases, you seem to be one of THEM : g, e, t, l, o, s, t
Quick, there is more than one t.

..|.
just my four trollfingers.

Ah btw. I'd suggest a script that alters the fracking word count so fast the donator has to SPLIT THE MONEY IN HALF TO SUFFICE BOTH STATES.
GODDAMMIT YOU MAKE ME SO ANGRY THESE DAYS.

sje46
Posts: 4730
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:41 am UTC
Location: New Hampshire

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby sje46 » Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:08 am UTC

Ian Mantell wrote:politically incorrect facts, anyone?

The damn world is overcrowded already.

Ocean food reserves are dropping _too fast_.

There is a woman getting 6+8 children by purpose in the states.

And you still have time and reason to discuss abortion?
When did the participants decide this is more important than overpopulation destroying our planet? Was this decision based on a word count by any chance?

Surplus opinion because I already boil over: for all those lowercase victims still asking what for we need
space travel research. Because TO ESCAPE. From YOU MORONS.
"Solve problems on earth first"? STFU. THEY ARE NOT RESOLVABLE, as long as tards like them questioners walk on earth.

Does not seem related to the topic for you? Take one of those lower cases, you seem to be one of THEM : g, e, t, l, o, s, t
Quick, there is more than one t.

..|.
just my four trollfingers.

Ah btw. I'd suggest a script that alters the fracking word count so fast the donator has to SPLIT THE MONEY IN HALF TO SUFFICE BOTH STATES.
GODDAMMIT YOU MAKE ME SO ANGRY THESE DAYS.

What?
General_Norris: Taking pride in your nation is taking pride in the division of humanity.
Pirate.Bondage: Let's get married. Right now.

User avatar
Ian Mantell
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:03 pm UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby Ian Mantell » Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:38 am UTC

you are already answered in the post above, line 10.
I stop reading answers now, got a planet to save. From your breed.

sje46
Posts: 4730
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:41 am UTC
Location: New Hampshire

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby sje46 » Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:29 pm UTC

Ian Mantell wrote:you are already answered in the post above, line 10.
I stop reading answers now, got a planet to save. From your breed.

I would suggest you see a therapist, sir. Perhaps you have schizophrenia? No offense intended, but I can't make any sense from your pathetically incoherent rant. And, quite frankly, my brain is starting to bleed from it.
Not cool, not funny, not a good rant.
General_Norris: Taking pride in your nation is taking pride in the division of humanity.
Pirate.Bondage: Let's get married. Right now.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7573
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby phlip » Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:20 pm UTC

He seems to be of the mistaken belief that we're actually discussing abortion in this thread...

Surprisingly, we're not. It's a happy type of surprised.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

User avatar
Kadzar
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 2:40 am UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby Kadzar » Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:05 pm UTC

Ian Mantell wrote:you are already answered in the post above, line 10.
I stop reading answers now, got a planet to save. From your breed.
What exactly are you planning? Is it genocide? It had better not be genocide. :x
Geogriffith wrote:
Dad, where is Grandpa right now?

"His source code was forked, backups moved off-site, and merged with a compatible project with similar goals. As was mine, as will yours be, someday."
Some Sort of Shuriken-Based Propulsion

sje46
Posts: 4730
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:41 am UTC
Location: New Hampshire

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby sje46 » Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:43 am UTC

Kadzar wrote:
Ian Mantell wrote:you are already answered in the post above, line 10.
I stop reading answers now, got a planet to save. From your breed.
What exactly are you planning? Is it genocide? It had better not be genocide. :x

Well, there's one set of genes in this thread I wouldn't mind removing from the gene pool . . .
General_Norris: Taking pride in your nation is taking pride in the division of humanity.
Pirate.Bondage: Let's get married. Right now.

vel
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:56 pm UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby vel » Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:10 pm UTC

Wikipedia could simply delete the article, but would then not be covering the event.
Alternatvly, it could put a script at the end of the page with a 50% chance of adding a word. (Thus equaling the chance either group would "win")

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby Random832 » Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:02 am UTC

Wildcard wrote:I think that someone of the opinion that the BHG should be made confused as to who to donate the money to could not, themselves, qualify as neutral. They care.


But that's not the coverage.

Gumbitha
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:49 am UTC

Re: "Neutrality Schmeutrality" discussion

Postby Gumbitha » Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:45 pm UTC

The solution: use wiki code. :)

Template for displaying a different number of words depending on the local hour. (I would do by second, but I have no idea how to parse the ISO date stamp in wikicode.

Code: Select all

<includeonly>
{{#switch:{{{{LOCALHOUR}}}}
|0=even
|1=odd odd
|2=even
|3=odd odd
|4=even
...
|23=odd odd
|24=even
</includeonly>


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pex, Vytron and 94 guests