> 1. Tim's "shooter girl" post really is the minimum standard against
> which all other potentially "filthy" posts must be compared.
Shucks, Altavista cannot find this. DanK had this excellent idea that
someone setup an Altavista that continually slurps bits off the Web, not
just once a month or whatever stupid refresh rate the Altavista spider has.
Not surprisingly, the people I visited at Microsoft in May wrote the
idea down in their little notebooks and I have not heard from them since.
> Simply mentioning a few random genitalia names isn't going to get you
> anywhere close to that standard.
Darnit. I want to be filthy!
> 2. You are confusing the set of genders with the power set
> generated by that set (the set of sets of appropriate genders). In other
> words, the set { 2, 3, 4 } is not an integer, and the set { male, female
> } is not a gender (nor is { male }).
Um, okay, I concede. I've changed "the" to "an". Never has an article
ever given me so much trouble. At least, not since my Hubble article...
> 3. Yeah, I figured the JoeB/JoeK duality has something to do with
> it, but as you pretty much admit, the concept that "someone" in
> particular needs to attack Microsoft is pretty ridiculous.
True. Microsoft provides so much trollbait, it practically attacks itself.
> Sort of like training your dog to piss on a fire hydrant, just in case
> none of the other dogs in the neighborhood thought of it.
Is Microsoft the dog in this scenario, or the fire hydrant?
Or the piss?
> 4. Okay list, but you are missing many terms listed in that
> essential desk reference, The Beavis and Butt-head Ensucklopedia.
Darn, I thought I slurped down those bits.
> PS. Is this, right here, the first time the word "smegma" has been used
> on this list? I sure hope so.
Oh yeah? Well, this is the first time anyone on the Internet has ever
said this line:
After I finish shoving this red-hot poker up my ass,
I'm going to chop my dick off.
I guess that's still nowhere near as crude as Byars, eh?
----
adam@cs.caltech.edu
I only want to come up with the theories, though: bits are for kids.
I'm beginning to see that WoT might *actually* be new intellectual
construct, whereas before it's only been a phrase. But this paper
seeems sooo weeak compared with what's needed to formalize it. Still,
I'm more convinced than ever how rare model-making is, and how much
power accrues to the first good model-maker in an area.
-- Rohit Khare