ZoeTick

I thought it was closed because of drastically falling visitors once they had closed the Captain's Orgy Room and the BDSM Dungeon in the bulwarks.

Breaking news . . . LL uses the core elements of this age algorithm for forum moderation purposes. The elements that provide wildly inaccurate conclusions!

Can we just rename this the New Vanity Thread and be done with it?

irihapeti wrote: is no reason why smart algos/bots cant be deployed against blatantisms without human oversight. And probably already are on some forums/SNs now today + example of blatantism a forum ToS says No Swearing person swears: Automagic warning person swears again: Goneburger Someone says "Balls" Automagic moderation. Except someone asked what you played snooker with. Someone says "Mist". Automagic moderation assumes they are referring to an atmospheric phenomenon. Germanic person is expressing an exclamation relating to ordure. So it's much the same as idiot ESLer moderation. No reason?

Callum Meriman wrote: Because I abor seeing an author's words mangled Expect the rabble, those who can only speak one language, to be up in arms with this heresay. You also mangled the English. I took the translation from The Year of Reading Dangerously; Houellebecq probably did it himself.

I think that someone has confused the "before" and "after" state of the dogfood.

You're all a bit confused. It's not physical age, it's reading age. Or in the case of those One Direction lookalikes, IQ.

I have an idea. Why don't you ask the folks over in the ANSWERS section. It's precisely the sort of thing to which they delight in copying and pasting a solution.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: I see nothing in the abstract Never trust an abstract. Especially when it is written in English by an ESLer. Take Genesis, for example . . .

I would buy a very large linen cupboard to store them in.

And if you are not selected do you get six months Premium Membership?

Marigold Devin wrote: Titanic http://slurl.com/secondlife/Titanic/61/214/43 That place doesn't have Celine DIon playing in the background does it? Just checking.

. . . brings scant relief. It retraces, it delimits. It tends a touch of coherence, the idea of a kind of realism. One stumbles around in a cruel fog, but there is the odd pointer. Chaos is no more than a few feet away. A meagre victory, in truth. What a contrast with the absolute, miraculous power of reading! [Whatever - M Houellebecq. Translated from the original French, which may account for it being a bit weird.] PS Houellebecq advocated the use of mathematical problems in literature. So maybe it's not necessarily the translation that is weird.

Shelby Silverspar wrote: In SL since 2006, newbe. Obviously I don't spend nearly as much time on the forum as you do. I was going by your forum registration. As you are mine. So . . . eight years and still ignorant learning, eh?

Marigold Devin wrote: Get them there explorer's boots back on and dive in Erm, Marigold, I think you may be taking this immersion thing a bit far. It hasn't sunk . . .

Hi Laurin, I wondered if linking to the "Malicious" thread might encourage more participants there to reappear here... It would make my week if Jig were to visit teh forums!

Given the news about the SS Galaxy disappearing, I thought it might be a public service to initiate a thread requesting suggestions for places in SL that everybody should see before the plug gets pulled. Warning: any shameless self-promotion will not only be RICked to a co-operative mod, but will be shunned by those who might see this as beneficial. I would like to propose the Mont St Michel build. Unless La Merveille has quietly gone its way without me noticing.

LaskyaClaren wrote: . It's a lot more fun and flattering to picture oneself in combat with dragons The English (or maybe the Turks or Lebanese) may think it is heroic to fight dragons, but to the Welsh they are faithful pets.

It wouldn't be profitable?

Don't worry, it'll all be better in SL V2. The opportunities for griefing, I mean.

Celestiall Nightfire wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: The multitasking we do is at the subconscious level, which really isn't what multitasking discussions are generally about. Exactly. I didn't refer to any autonomic responses. So the pair of you are reframing the question of who is more effective at getting multiple things done by refusing to admit the relevance and importance of men doing things automatically that women have to make a big song and dance think about. Or more accurately, have to expedite discussions, obtain consensus, canvass the opinion of focus groups, conduct paired rest room negotiations, and other female equivalents of the prevarication which gets in the way of action in the real world. Next thing you know some enlightened researchers will conduct a study justifying the number of shoes in my wife's wardrobe by explaining it as a mechanism for reducing analysis time in making purchase decisions. They'll title the paper "I'll just take them in size six in all the colours you have".

LaskyaClaren wrote: PS. I'm actually rather proud of myself for not having ranted -- in this particular exchange anyway -- about the implicit misogyny of the term. Can I take your comment to represent permission to do so? ;-) Pep always made it perfectly clear that his reference to the LWL related to fussy and malicious old women of both sexes. Hell, the Gyppo, the Hipster, and (worst of all, since he suckered you more selfishly than Pep ever did) the gNat were just one rank below the MadBagLady.

LaskyaClaren wrote: What was less forgivable -- inexcusable, in fact -- was Pep's decision to repost the picture on subsequent occasions, deliberately, because he knew how upset it made some people. Nonsense. Pep promised to repost it as a response to LOLcats which upset him to the core, and did so after others deliberately provoked him; Pep simply stuck to his word, as would any gentleman of honour. I don't think that his posting a huge picture of a spider was very nice though, given that a couple of forum participants had admitted to severe arachnophobia - although surely that is a fear of spiders, not a fear of pictures of spiders.

LaskyaClaren wrote: I don't think that even he realized how much it would upset people. The image was artistic, the feline not even looking deceased, appearing as if it was merely relaxing, floating in a moire of raindrops. It was an attractive, provocative, wordless version of Pep's forum messages, and much less upsetting to the cognoscenti than anthropomorphised ESLers. You should have seen the images Pep discarded - because they would really have upset people. Mostly along the lines of a visual answer to the old question: "What's black and white and red all over". But I don't suppose you'd like to see Postman Pat's cat after he had accidentally run over it, or an illustration of the recipe which starts by saying "put the kitten in the microwave for 23 seconds"