|
Wikipedia ruins "The Mousetrap" by giving away the ending...., ...and gets a mention on French Radio tonight.... |
|
|
the fieryangel |
|
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined:
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577
|
Wikipedia puts the ending of Agatha Christie's "The Mousetrap" on the play's article.... and the Christie heirs are pissed. The issue is discussed ad naseum by the usual cast of Wikipediots...Among the gems in the discussion : QUOTE It would seem best to me, in order to avoid controversy and still provide the requested information, to create a "Killer in Agatha Christie's 'The Mousetrap'" article, move the entire plot spoiler there and then reference it in the introduction to the article. In this way, the final wishes of the author are upheld (and a fundamental part of the play's structure) and Wikipedia gets to post everything just as before.--eleuthero (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. We don't do that for other articles and we shouldn't do it for this one. If you don't want to know the plot, don't read the plot section of the article (or maybe don't read the article at all). --Two Bananas (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC) This would just be another form of spoiler, and would still be covered by WP:SPOILER. If a section called "Identity of the murderer" isn't enough of a clue to the reader that the identity of the murderer is about to be revealed, an article entitled "Killer in Agatha Christie's 'The Mousetrap'" presumably wouldn't help them much either (and could even be worse, if they got there from a Google search and the one-paragraph article got straight to the point). I'm not sure how hiding the ending behind a link would uphold Christie's final wishes any more closely - the Telegraph article suggests that her grandson considers it a "pity" when any reference work includes the plot in its entirety. --McGeddon (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Or they could just not include the spoiler in the article...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies
HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 20th September 2010, 7:36pm) It's part of the "geek mindset" (I know because I am one myself) that the abstract logical consistency of ideas and actions is of greater relevance than whatever real-world consequences the actions and ideas might have -- after all, the real world is messy, illogical, inconsistent, and full of annoying human beings, and hence is clearly inferior to the abstract logical plane.
Quite. It's just a sign of immaturity, of not having lived long enough to realise that logical consistencey doesn't mean shit. I recommend marriage as an antidote. That takes care of it quite effectively. I imagine the subconscious train of thought goes something like this: "Oy, you may rule out there, but you don't rule here, do ya? We rule! You don't, like, want us to put this in? Well, watch me! This is an En-Cy-Clo-PEE-Dia, and we're gonna, like, just do whatever we want, and there's nothing you can do about it." The last part of this is, of course, right. This knee-jerk reaction gets dressed up with abstract arguments about the value of information, and knowledge, but underneath that's what it is. People get stuck at that response, and don't progress beyond it to actually look at the situation from more than one perspective. The only time I remember Wikipedia actually stepping back from the brink was in the Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy (T-H-L-K-D). What about this one, Cyclopia? Would you like to have the pictures back in that article, or is there a limit to your logical consistency? After all, Wikipedia should not really care about the parents' feelings, should it?
|
|
|
|
Cyclopia |
|
Abominable sociopath, kool-aid addict.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 159
Joined:
From: Cambridge, UK
Member No.: 14,160
|
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Mon 20th September 2010, 9:11pm) QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 20th September 2010, 7:36pm) It's part of the "geek mindset" (I know because I am one myself) that the abstract logical consistency of ideas and actions is of greater relevance than whatever real-world consequences the actions and ideas might have -- after all, the real world is messy, illogical, inconsistent, and full of annoying human beings, and hence is clearly inferior to the abstract logical plane.
Quite. It's just a sign of immaturity, of not having lived long enough to realise that logical consistencey doesn't mean shit. I recommend marriage as an antidote. That takes care of it quite effectively. I imagine the subconscious train of thought goes something like this: "Oy, you may rule out there, but you don't rule here, do ya? We rule! You don't, like, want us to put this in? Well, watch me! This is an En-Cy-Clo-PEE-Dia, and we're gonna, like, just do whatever we want, and there's nothing you can do about it." You know what drives me mad? You guys are all talking about trying to understand other people sensibilities and stuff, and how insensitive people like me is, but it seems that at least a number of you is simply incapable of thinking that someone can, simply, have disagreeing opinions on this subject without hidden psychopathological motivations. You simply can't conceive that. QUOTE The only time I remember Wikipedia actually stepping back from the brink was in the Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy (T-H-L-K-D). What about this one, Cyclopia? Would you like to have the pictures back in that article, or is there a limit to your logical consistency? After all, Wikipedia should not really care about the parents' feelings, should it? Tough call: after all the photos were smuggled illegally, and thus could fall under private information. However, they are all over the place on the Internet, and they are for sure relevant to the article. Also the family has withdrawn from Internet use and has been already damaged by them much more directly by idiots emailing photos to them. I'd say at least a link to the photos should come back.
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 3:19pm) You know what drives me mad? You guys are all talking about trying to understand other people sensibilities and stuff, and how insensitive people like me is, but it seems that at least a number of you is simply incapable of thinking that someone can, simply, have disagreeing opinions on this subject without hidden psychopathological motivations. You simply can't conceive that. Sorry about that... (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) But you see, this is the problem with the "anonymity culture" as it exists on Wikipedia. People don't even bother to look at your own user page to try and get an idea of your ideological biases, because they're so used to the fact that user pages are full of, well, shite. In your case, you're from Italy, you've studied fascism, you oppose it, and you know (being Italian) that fascism is a very real possibility in a country, not a "can't happen here" abstraction. And you know (as we all do) that heavy censorship and propagandizing are key features of a fascist state. To me, this is clearly the (non-psychological) basis for your adoption of an extreme anti-censorship ideology, and I for one don't blame you for that. Nevertheless, IMO it's easy to go too far in the other direction. There's no possible way that hiding (or even editing out completely) the ending to The Mousetrap could assist in the establishment of a totalitarian regime of any kind. In fact, it suggests the opposite: Another hallmark of totalitarianism is a disrespect for artists, based on the idea that "art should exist only in service to the state" and other such horrible claptrap. Usually that means censoring the art itself, but it also means making it more difficult for artists who don't conform to make a living. Just by way of example, that could conceivably include the publicly revealment of the endings of whodunits. Wikipedians will, for the most part, say they think art is a wonderful thing. However, Wikipedia does not respect artists and what they do. They never have; that's one of the worst things about Wikipedia, and while it could be said of the entire internet to some degree, Wikipedia sometimes takes it to extremes.
|
|
|
|
Cyclopia |
|
Abominable sociopath, kool-aid addict.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 159
Joined:
From: Cambridge, UK
Member No.: 14,160
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 20th September 2010, 10:19pm) QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 3:19pm) You know what drives me mad? You guys are all talking about trying to understand other people sensibilities and stuff, and how insensitive people like me is, but it seems that at least a number of you is simply incapable of thinking that someone can, simply, have disagreeing opinions on this subject without hidden psychopathological motivations. You simply can't conceive that. Sorry about that... (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) But you see, this is the problem with the "anonymity culture" as it exists on Wikipedia. People don't even bother to look at your own user page to try and get an idea of your ideological biases, because they're so used to the fact that user pages are full of, well, shite. Can't truly blame them for that. My user page is quite full of shite as well, if you want (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) QUOTE In your case, you're from Italy, you've studied fascism, you oppose it, and you know (being Italian) that fascism is a very real possibility in a country, not a "can't happen here" abstraction. And you know (as we all do) that heavy censorship and propagandizing are key features of a fascist state. To me, this is clearly the (non-psychological) basis for your adoption of an extreme anti-censorship ideology, and I for one don't blame you for that.
It is one of the motives. The current political situation in my country is another (not as bad as fascism: yet quite chilling, perhaps even more because it is subtle and masked by nice words. And that's why I at least respect fascists, even if they are enemies. They are (well, the clever ones) intellectually honest. They want an authoritarian or totalitarian state, and they're proud of that.) And, talking of personal biases, the pretty dramatic submission to the Catholic church that is pervasive of Italian culture and politics (including left-wing one). To be called an "atheist", in Italy, is almost a bloody insult. Just today there was the celebration for the anniversary of the capture of Rome (T-H-L-K-D), the final moment of Italian unification against the Papal state. Not that I care of such nationalistic rhetoric, but: who did they invite? Catholic Cardinals. Who were kept away by police? Atheists. QUOTE Nevertheless, IMO it's easy to go too far in the other direction. There's no possible way that hiding (or even editing out completely) the ending to The Mousetrap could assist in the establishment of a totalitarian regime of any kind. In fact, it suggests the opposite: Another hallmark of totalitarianism is a disrespect for artists, based on the idea that "art should exist only in service to the state" and other such horrible claptrap. Usually that means censoring the art itself, but it also means making it more difficult for artists who don't conform to make a living. Just by way of example, that could conceivably include the publicly revealment of the endings of whodunits.
I wholly agree that it won't be by removing spoilers that the Big Brother will come; but also the opposite you suggest seems quite a stretch, frankly. Again, books (movies, plays) are public: "revealment" is nothing else than peeking in the book and writing what's in it. But there is something about the "hiding (or even editing out completely) the ending to The Mousetrap could assist in the establishment of a totalitarian regime". Of course not directly, but the mentality that there are reasons to restrain information on what are already public facts makes me uneasy, anyway. You are probably American, you live in a place where, AFAIK, there is full freedom of speech. I understand you see the opposite problem. QUOTE Wikipedians will, for the most part, say they think art is a wonderful thing. However, Wikipedia does not respect artists and what they do. They never have; that's one of the worst things about Wikipedia, and while it could be said of the entire internet to some degree, Wikipedia sometimes takes it to extremes.
It depends on what you consider respect, I guess.
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 4:30pm) I wholly agree that it won't be by removing spoilers that the Big Brother will come; but also the opposite you suggest seems quite a stretch, frankly. Again, books (movies, plays) are public: "revealment" is nothing else than peeking in the book and writing what's in it. But this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're treating art as mere "information" - and that's bad; there's more to art than that. You should read some Martin Heidegger or maybe an Albert Camus novel or two. In the case of, say, a painting or a poem, the art, i.e., the thing itself, is apparent by seeing, or simply reading, the work. But in the case of a whodunit, or some kinds of musical performance, or "performance art" in general, the experience is the key thing. It has a transcendental quality that is horribly cheapened by treating it as mere information. This is the thing that Wikipedia doesn't respect, because Wikipedians self-select towards being non-creative researchers and aggregators of facts, data and minutiae. That should be perfectly fine, though - it's expected, even preferable to having the whole thing written by "creatives." But a real encyclopedia would still have more respect for artists, and its editors would better understand the existential underpinnings of culture and their place in it. You could almost go even further, and say that the inclusion of the spoiler with no rollup or warning shows disrespect for the reader more than it would otherwise, because it assumes the reader who is viewing the article is incapable of appreciating the work of art as such and is therefore reading an encyclopedia article about it rather than actually experiencing it directly. That may well be true in many cases, but does that make it less disrespectful?
|
|
|
|
Cyclopia |
|
Abominable sociopath, kool-aid addict.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 159
Joined:
From: Cambridge, UK
Member No.: 14,160
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 20th September 2010, 10:49pm) QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 4:30pm) I wholly agree that it won't be by removing spoilers that the Big Brother will come; but also the opposite you suggest seems quite a stretch, frankly. Again, books (movies, plays) are public: "revealment" is nothing else than peeking in the book and writing what's in it. But this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're treating art as mere "information" - and that's bad; there's more to art than that. You should read some Martin Heidegger or maybe an Albert Camus novel or two. In the case of, say, a painting or a poem, the art, i.e., the thing itself, is apparent by seeing, or simply reading, the work. But in the case of a whodunit, or some kinds of musical performance, or "performance art" in general, the experience is the key thing. It has a transcendental quality that is horribly cheapened by treating it as mere information. I have read a couple Camus novels; I tried also to read some Heidegger stuff long time ago but I found it gibberish in disguise. However I completely agree with you on the point that experience is the key thing etc. Absolutely. But encyclopedias are not meant to do that: they are meant exactly to treat it as mere information. Of course it "cheaps" the thing, but it is irrelevant, completely, because the point of an encyclopedia is not that of help your enjoyment, is that of giving you, duh, mere information. Again, to me it seems that many complaints with WP is because you expect from it something that it is not meant to be. You are asking the hammer to be the screwdriver. It isn't. "But couldn't you make it more screwdriver-like so that we people who like to use screws instead of nails are happier?". Hell, no. It is a damn hammer. If you need a screwdriver, go and use a screwdriver. And the link I provided in the discussion proved that for example film fans actually understand that and understand that spoilers are to be expected. Because if they don't want to know, they simply avoid to read. You can avoid to read Wikipedia. It seems this is a concept hard to grasp here (perhaps to be expected, given that it's explicitly a Wikipedia-obsessed site) but you really can. QUOTE This is the thing that Wikipedia doesn't respect, because Wikipedians self-select towards being non-creative researchers and aggregators of facts, data and minutiae. That should be perfectly fine, though - it's expected, even preferable to having the whole thing written by "creatives." Agreed. QUOTE But a real encyclopedia would still have more respect for artists, and its editors would better understand the existential underpinnings of culture and their place in it.
You could almost go even further, and say that the inclusion of the spoiler with no rollup or warning shows disrespect for the reader more than it would otherwise, because it assumes the reader who is viewing the article is incapable of appreciating the work of art as such and is therefore reading an encyclopedia article about it rather than actually experiencing it directly. That may well be true in many cases, but does that make it less disrespectful? Uhm, no. It only assumes that the reader, in that moment, wants to read an encyclopedia article. A very basic assumption, I'd say, for encyclopedia articles. This post has been edited by Cyclopia:
|
|
|
|
dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 11:07pm) Uhm, no. It only assumes that the reader, in that moment, wants to read an encyclopedia article. A very basic assumption, I'd say, for encyclopedia articles.
And what should you assume about a reader who is looking for an encyclopedia article - that they are one of the few thousand dysfunctional editors or one of the many millions of readers of an encyclopedia. This is the crux of the matter. Wikipedians have no concept of what the audience is. You have an assumption that the audience for Wikipedia is made up of Web 2.0 Wikipedian lookalikes, whereas our premise is that the majority of users are the ordinary people we mix with in the real world. Why would I want to look at an encyclopedia article about a murder mystery. I want to know basic facts: - who wrote it and when. - how long it has been running in the West End - was it well received critically - considered to be their finest work (perhaps I am considering where to delve into the genre. I would not expect an article in an encyclopedia to be a comprehensive synopsis of the story, certainly not to the point of giving more than a vague setting. For example, if I was writing a review of a mystery that had a plot remarkably like Hansel and Gretel, convention would have it that it would probably be ok to reveal that the story revolved around some children getting lost in the woods, but revealing that there was a witch involved and that there were ovens and nastiness at the end would be considered wrong. This is not like considering the actual Hansel and Gretel which is very much part of our common shared culture and we are expected to know, as adults, this childhood tale (but as adults we wouldn't expect to go to a child and say "Let's read Hansel and Gretel where the children murder a witch rather than giving her a fair trial in a court of law"). I would have said that you are an extremist, only there is precious little evidence on Wikipedia that you are in that context. The fundamental error in your reasoning is that you cannot conceive that there are differing points of view within the readership. There are the goldfish-like youth who really are not interested in devoting more than a few seconds to any experience; but in the real world there remain some old fossils who have a naive view that Wikipedia conforms to real world conventions such as "Don't spoil it for others". When someone asks "What did you think of Salt" there are a miriad of ways of describing the film to give someone a sense of whether they'd be interested, but the one golden rule is don't tell the plot twists and endings. For example, I'd describe it as The Bourne Supremacy with a female lead and feel a little guilty about what twists that might give away, so I'd probably stick with it being like a Bourne film. Anyhow, there is already an encyclopedia for films on Teh InterWeb - IMDb, and do you know what, the reason it is considered a good resource is that it sticks to the conventions, and does not seek to give away the plot of a film; the user forum is a bit of an exception, but people usually flag up when they are talking about what happens. It is not unusual. A football match has a result, but people want to hide from the result. The BBC, when doing football scores at times other than the traditional Saturday results programme, tell people that the scores are going to be on and sometimes will not even voice over the results. So the point is, in the real world, normal people expect others to respect the conventions that respect other people's enjoyment. The fact that Wikipedians think it is appropriate to flout those conventions when there are multiple easy ways of configuring around it shows a contempt for others. I'll tell you what. I think it would be very interesting for Robert Harris to weigh in on this one, as respect for the readership was one of his core principles for the controversial content review, and I think, as someone who shows signs of being based in the real world, he would be really bemused that deliberately spoiling people's enjoyment for a single-minded pursuit of force feeding information could be considered controversial rather than a no-brainer.
|
|
|
|
Posts in this topic
the fieryangel Wikipedia ruins "The Mousetrap" by giving away the ending.... Cock-up-over-conspiracy Or they could just not include the spoiler in the ... CharlotteWebb
The rules of its licence mean it can only be perf... Milton Roe
"I see dead people...." They don't... HRIP7 Useful article in the New York Times today. I must... EricBarbour
Useful [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/18/bus... thekohser
(And in the interests of full disclosure, I must ... Milton Roe
[quote name='EricBarbour' post='252849' date='Fri... dtobias Why should this play have any more (or less) prote... taiwopanfob Why should this play have any more (or less) prote... Abd
[quote name='dtobias' post='251021' date='Thu 2nd... jayvdb
[quote name='dtobias' post='251021' date='Thu 2n... CharlotteWebb
You knew the plot was going to be spoiled. If yo... jayvdb
You knew the plot was going to be spoiled. If y... taiwopanfob Reading a great novel the second time is more enjo... jayvdb
Reading a great novel the second time is more enj... HRIP7
What in the world is wrong with using a collapse ... Somey Well, I [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?t... CharlotteWebb
I saw The Mousetrap in London in 1977, and it had... Milton Roe
[quote name='Milton Roe' post='252194' date='Sun ... HRIP7
How can sane people [i]possibly reject a perfectl... Cyclopia
If you make a concession on The Mousetrap, next t... dogbiscuit
[quote name='HRIP7' post='252950' date='Sun 19th ... Cyclopia
Of course Wikipedians seem to think that the ide... thekohser
No, it's not that it is hard. It is simply no... thekohser
No, it's not that it is hard. It is simply n... Cyclopia
[quote name='thekohser' post='253000' date='Sun 1... thekohser
...no, nothing notable and public so far, apart f... Cyclopia
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='253066' date='Mon 20... thekohser
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='253066' date='Mon 2... Cyclopia
Always the same demonstration for us. "We (... Larry Sanger This whole situation indicates to me just how comm... Milton Roe
Basically, Wikipedia is an adolescent encyclopedi... A Horse With No Name
This whole situation indicates to me just how com... HRIP7
Basically, Wikipedia is an adolescent encyclopedi... Larry Sanger
Of course Wikipedians seem to think that the id... thekohser
Why should this play have any more (or less) prot... CharlotteWebb
[quote name='dtobias' post='251021' date='Thu 2nd... KD Tries Again
Why should this play have any more (or less) prot... A Horse With No Name That play is still running in London? I saw it 20 ... Cock-up-over-conspiracy God, that arsehole Garrett 'SarekOfVulcan... SarekOfVulcan
God, that arsehole Garrett 'SarekOfVulcan... Cock-up-over-conspiracy Unlike you, I _do_ have a life that doesn't in... EricBarbour And insensitivity seems to be pretty much what oth... Cock-up-over-conspiracy No, it's not that it is hard. It is simply non... Cyclopia
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='252992' date='Sun 19... dogbiscuit
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='252992' date='Sun 1... Cyclopia
Why Wikipedians think that there is a duty to imp... Somey The duty to impart this information openly and wit... Cyclopia
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='252999' date='Sun 19... Somey I would have been very much annoyed to read an enc... Cyclopia [quote name='Cyclopia' post='252994' date='Sun 19t... Somey [b]I would. I would feel to be treated like a moro... Cyclopia
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='253003' date='Sun 19... Somey ...And also [i]philosophically distracting, in the... Cyclopia
...And also [i]philosophically distracting, in th... HRIP7
It's like buying a pint of hydrocloric acid, ... Larry Sanger
It's like buying a pint of hydrocloric acid,... Cock-up-over-conspiracy But this choice already exists: if you don't w... Cyclopia
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='253003' date='Sun 19... Cock-up-over-conspiracy Apart from that, I'd say that in this case it ... Cyclopia
Apart from that, I'd say that in this case it... taiwopanfob
(That said, what has my background to do with the... Cyclopia
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='253052' date='Mon 20... EricBarbour Offending readers is not something that can be tak... Cyclopia
Offending readers is not something that can be ta... taiwopanfob Not really. I don't think this is a forum of e... Cyclopia
Are you, as an editor at the project, basically l... Cyclopia
I'll also point out that I predicted you woul... lilburne
Note that I said mirror, not fork. You could bui... lilburne
Offending readers is not something that can be t... Cyclopia
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='253059' date='Mon 20... lilburne
I find it pretty ridicolous that they blocked yo... Larry Sanger This is another gem:
[quote name='Somey' post='25... Larry Sanger Here's another way to explain it. Basically, ... Cyclopia
This is another gem:
[quote name='Cyclopia' post=... Larry Sanger
I don't pretend that this isn't the case,... Cyclopia
I don't pretend that this isn't the case... HRIP7
I already linked a cinema blog, quite clearly pop... Larry Sanger
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='253126' date='Mon 20... Emperor
Again: you seem to reason like people is forced t... Cyclopia
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='253115' date='Mon 20... Emperor
And why "it's up to critics to explain... Cyclopia
I started my own encyclopedia to fill the need fo... Emperor
[quote name='Emperor' post='253267' date='Tue 21s... Cyclopia
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='253271' date='Mon 20... GlassBeadGame
Hey, you are the third guy in a row that is ack... Cyclopia
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='253274' date='Mon 20... Milton Roe
Once I was at a one-day course about Myers-Briggs... WikiWatch No need to buy the book. Wikipedia has it covered:... Jon Awbrey
Hey, you are the [i]third guy in a row that is ac... lilburne
Again: you seem to reason like people is forced ... Milton Roe
Obviously, there is a reason: revealing a signifi... carbuncle
Oh, I think Cyclopia knows this "truth.... A Horse With No Name
Doesn't care what others are feeling? You mak... Cyclopia
Oh, I think Cyclopia knows this "truth.... Milton Roe
Lol. I am not. I happen to have a curiosity about... Cyclopia
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='253121' date='Mon 20... Cock-up-over-conspiracy Obviously, there is a reason: revealing a signific... Cyclopia
What we are talking about here is The Mousetrap -... Larry Sanger
[quote name='Cock-up-over-conspira... Cyclopia
[quote name='Cock-up-over-conspir... Larry Sanger
[quote name='Larry Sanger' post='253138' date='Mo... Cyclopia
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='253147' date='Mon 20... Milton Roe
while my axiom is:
See? Public and notable is ... Cyclopia
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='253153' date='Mon 20... Milton Roe
And that's because of the creepy guys like yo... Larry Sanger
Just for the record: I took my Ph.D. in Italy, no... Cyclopia
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='253153' date='Mon 20... Larry Sanger From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cyclopia , ... Cyclopia
That is easy to say, but when you come down to it... thekohser
If published, why should they be illegal? Ugly ... Cyclopia
If published, why should they be illegal? Ugly... Cyclopia
[quote name='thekohser' post='253171' date='Mon 2... thekohser
I understand what you mean (yes, there is hypocri... thekohser
My life is not published on any book, nor reporte... Milton Roe
What we are talking about here is The Mousetrap -... A Horse With No Name
[quote name='Cock-up-over-conspira... A Horse With No Name
God, that arsehole Garrett 'SarekOfVulcan... Michaeldsuarez Wikipedia could do what Wookieepeda does
The Neos... Cyclopia Also, for example, it seems that a lot of cinema-l... Somey I am not talking of your intentions. I am talking ... EricBarbour Okay, Cyclopia. Here's a question for you.
Do... Cyclopia
Okay, Cyclopia. Here's a question for you.
D... A Horse With No Name
I have little respect for Brandt...
It cuts bot... Cyclopia
I have little respect for Brandt...
It cuts bo... A Horse With No Name
But this has little to do with [i]The Mousetrap, ... Somey
Ultimately, the reason they're so intransigen... Larry Sanger
Quote of the year! :lol:
Indeed, he gets th... GlassBeadGame
It's part of the "geek mindset" (I ... Milton Roe
It's part of the "geek mindset" (I ... GlassBeadGame
It's not just a geek mindset, it's gener... Cyclopia
It's part of the "geek mindset" (I ... Milton Roe
It's part of the "geek mindset" (I... GlassBeadGame
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='253167' date='Mon 20... GlassBeadGame
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='253167' date='Mon 20... Cyclopia
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='253167' date='Mon 2... Milton Roe
No. But what do you think of some adult person dr... Cyclopia
No. But what do you think of some adult person d... Milton Roe
[quote name='Milton Roe' post='253189' date='Mon ... HRIP7
Rest assured that it is not a special ability. AS... Cyclopia
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='253187' date='Mon 20... HRIP7
Thanks for the coconut! Sincerely, even if yo... A Horse With No Name
Luckly I found an Italian girlfriend.
Okay, now... A Horse With No Name
I am informally quite Asperger (never diagnosed ... lilburne
However, they are all over the place on the Inter... HRIP7
You know what drives me mad? You guys are all tal... HRIP7
Tough call: after all the photos were smuggled il... Cyclopia
Tough call: after all the photos were smuggled i... Cock-up-over-conspiracy Remembering in every disagreement, there is much o... HRIP7
Remembering in every disagreement, there is much ... Cyclopia
Cyclopedia, I don't think you are a bad perso... tarantino THERE IS NO NEED TO REMOVE ALL OF THAT INFORMATION... Jon Awbrey
THERE IS NO NEED TO REMOVE ALL OF THAT INFORMATIO... Cock-up-over-conspiracy A lot of this again also comes down to marketing a... dtobias I come out as an INTJ on those tests.
I'd hug... dogbiscuit Mod note: Horsey's inappropriate off-topic ram... A Horse With No Name
Mod note: Horsey's inappropriate off-topic ra... RHeterodyne Earlier today, I was reading an article about some...
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |