RoR: Forum

"Why, why, why do the posts of comments on an article always begin with #0? Is that also New Zealandese"

I bet it has to do with common bus notation in digital circuit design, since Mr Rowlands is involved in such....A wild guess I admit.

Post 21

Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 11:20pm

Barbara,
using zero as the first "number" allows New Zealanders to count eleven things without taking their shoes off.

An enormous increase in productivity given all the sheep that have to be counted :-).
(Edited by David Bertelsen on 8/21, 11:20pm)

Post 22

Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 2:20am

Ethan,

:-) The secreat sniper has been caught....I love it!

Sorry if I'm missing the obvious but what do you mean?

MH

Post 23

Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 5:30pm

On the subject of cheese, as I said elsewhere, I love onions.

Post 24

Monday, August 23, 2004 - 1:42am

Why, why, why do the posts of comments on an article always begin with #0? Is that also New Zealandese?

No - starting replies with 0 is programmerese. It's time we face the fact: numbers are really just offsets in memory, so they start with zero, being the first memory slot. Message #0 is the message that's offset zero from the beginning.

Post 25

Monday, August 23, 2004 - 4:09am

David B wrote: "using zero as the first "number" allows New Zealanders to count eleven things without taking their shoes off."

Despite the other explanations, this is the one I understand.

Post 26

Monday, August 23, 2004 - 5:42am

Ni Matthew,

My secret sniper reference was to the fact that Mr. S was unsanctioning some of my posts anonymously, which he previously claimed (in the GRand Abuse thread and others) was a bad thing.

Ethan

Post 27

Monday, August 23, 2004 - 6:19am

The numbers are actually value rankings. The first reply is generally a knee-jerk affair of value 0. Threads get more and more interesting as the discussion proceeds. Witness the present post.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 8/24, 9:48am)

Post 28

Monday, August 23, 2004 - 9:26am

I believe that many of you will greatly miss the un-sanction button. There is nothing more comforting than the knowledge that you were able to so utterly defeat a persons argument that a 40 or 50 year old man had to resort to his high school immaturity to feel any sense of peace of mind. Suppose you had a 100 atlas points last time you looked, then had a heated exchange with a member that was making outrageous assertions, when you logged back on a day later you noticed its down to 50. Personally, I would laugh my &%$ off.

That�s about 90% of the un-sanctions, but there�s another scenario many of you will miss - if you�re honest enough to admit it. It�s the 'rational prankster' scenario.

This is the guy that can't help but notice how terribly important atlas points or recognition of any kind (even negative) is to a particular member. You notice that this forum guy that has ZERO sense of humor, takes everything personally, and frequently insist that there is a 'conspiracy' against him in the forum. You guys know the type - lets not lie. The guy is usually so self-conscious that he takes great pains to hide it under a veneer of hyper-seriousness. It wouldn't be so bad if this type of guy actually had something of value to contribute, but for the most part these types are 'wanna be' geniuses - smart but not quite smart enough.

Now here comes the honesty part; you know damn well that this guy is going to flip if his 'atlas points' go down a single point. He will scream how little it matters to him, that its just a matter of 'principle' - but the volume and intensity of his, " I don't care - but" will be just a little too loud to be genuine. Now you know damn well - that you're going to laugh your %$#@ off at his over-reaction.

So, I suspect a 10% un-sanction ratio amid our more 'pranksterish' intellectuals.

George

Post 29

Monday, August 23, 2004 - 9:30am

Hello, Ethan.

>>My secret sniper reference was to the fact that Mr. S was unsanctioning some of my posts anonymously, which he previously claimed (in the GRand Abuse thread and others) was a bad thing.<<

As the most heavily "unsanctioned" participant in this forum, my experience gives me some expertise to comment on this. With a single exception, all of the 300 or so "unsanctions" I have received were anonymous. That is one reason why this "unsanctioning" practice was so noxious. When done anonymously it was purely destructive. No edification resulted.

To his credit, I have noticed that Stolyarov had informed the subjects of his "unsanctions" why he did so. Sometimes a discussion would result that resolved the dispute. Whether or not he had done so on all occasions I don't know. But I do know he is not the offender Linz was referring to. The anonymous serial "unsanctioner" is a 3-Level participant and Stolyarov has obtained the fourth level of Atlas points.

Those are the facts. Do with them as you will. I for one, in light of SOLO's fix for this problem, am glad to put this crap behind me without recriminations.

Regards,
Bill

Post 30

Monday, August 23, 2004 - 9:35am

SOLO Admin:

Having just told Ethan how glad I am that this "unsanctioning" business has been eliminated by you, I find that I have been put on moderated status. Is this a glitch or a decision by management?

Regards,
Bill

Post 31

Monday, August 23, 2004 - 11:02am