h a l f b a k e r yStill more entertaining than cricket.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
When a halfbaker deletes his/her account, all of that person's ideas disappear. Often, someone in the future then proposes a similar idea, which is soon followed by mumblings like "I know I've seen that idea here before but... hmm, I can't seem to find it..."
But alas, some of the ideas are truly
ingenious, and it's a shame to lose them!
So I propose the Halfbakery Orphanage.
When a person deletes his account, all his ideas get moved to the Orphanage, indicated by the "orphanage" link on the left side of the screen (which is RED if it has contents in it). Anyone can browse the orphanage, and if you find an idea you really like and don't want to see deleted, you can "Adopt" the idea.
You assign it back to a real category of your choice, and the signature line changes to show the name of the benefactor: e.g.
-- phundug (adopted)
Please sponsor a lost, lonely idea today, because any idea that remains in the Orphanage for more than 2 weeks will be "put to sleep."
Thank you.
Former Idea List
http://www.halfbake...ormer_20Idea_20List
somewhat similar [FarmerJohn, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 06 2004]
Another approach
http://www.halfbake...0All_2fStart_20Over
I recently annotated this one. [bungston, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 06 2004]
[link]
|
| |
This already is the orphanage. |
|
| |
When I delete my account, I intend it to be gone. The last thing I want to do is leave my texts in the control of the very people that drove me away. |
|
| |
Maybe one could will their ideas? |
|
| |
Wasn't that "But Cheek Spreader"? |
|
| |
Jutta, on the topic of "male oriented writing", what's your preferred method of gender-neutral pronouns? Evidently you have an opinion as to what you like to see 'round these parts. |
|
| |
Personally I like the "artificial" second-person-neutral pronouns of hir, hirs, s/he, and so forth, but only use them when I think they are both necessary and likely to not be misinterpreted as typos. Which isn't very often. I use "they" most of the rest of the time, though it's grammatically ambiguous. |
|
| |
Mostly, it can be avoided by useing they, their and them, as if refering to an unknown third party. That's what I do, and is the easiest way to avoid getting in the his/her dilemma.
e.g. "When a person deletes their account...." |
|
| |
what about divorce an idea? it seemed like a good idea at the time. perhaps you posted it drunk. or maybe the annos have turned it all into an embarrassment to your good HB name. click the divorce link and suddenly your idea is free and single, your name is removed and it starts hanging round the HB singles bar looking for a new master. |
|
| |
There was an idea here long ago, "Clue Spray" which was deleted when the owner left. I would dearly like to have it back, adopted or not, just to link to it in some of the stupider ideas I see. |
|
| |
Loving that one myself, I actually posted it again (having both the original text and the copyright), but it got pounded. I'll try yet again if you like. |
|
| |
[goff]: I believe that "When a person deletes his account..." is correct because "his" is not necessarily male, whereas "When a person deletes their account..." is incorrect because "their" is always plural.
Then again, I believe many things. |
|
| |
Not so fast there [angel]... |
|
| |
Merriam-Webster defines "his" as:
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English, genitive of hE he
: of or relating to him or himself especially as possessor, agent, or object of an action <his house> <his writings> <his confirmation> |
|
| |
while they define "their" as:
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from their, pronoun, from Old Norse theirra, genitive plural demonstrative & personal pronoun; akin to Old English thæt that
1 : of or relating to them or themselves especially as possessors, agents, or objects of an action <their furniture> <their verses> <their being seen>
2 : his or her : HIS, HER, ITS -- used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent <anyone in their senses -- W. H. Auden> |
|
| |
So it seems that "his" does indeed always refer to "he" and as such is male, while "their" can be used in the singular to imply either his or her. |
|
| |
See - the English language is both flexible and non-sexist. |
|
| |
[luecke]: But then, the College of Wooster Writing Centre says "One must NEVER use they and their as singular genderless pronouns." The State of Oregon Department of Administrative Services (whaddya mean, you don't have them bookmarked?) says "Some sources say use they or their as singular pronouns. Some say they and their are strictly plural"
I'm aware that there are differences of opinion, and that current opinion is tending towards acceptability of the use of "their" as singular. I merely relayed what I was taught those many years ago (complete with disclaimer). |
|
| |
surely when it comes to language the question is what is being communicated. if words are gender specific and are read as such then that is an issue. if 'their' is being used as a singular and is easily read as such then it is not an issue. dictionary's etc. are guides not law. in fact if you look up the word dictionary in a dic... oh never mind. |
|
| |
When a 'baker deletes an account, all said 'bakers' ideas get moved... |
|
| |
Many current style guides take that approach, [thumb]; not to enter the ring is better than to have to select which horn to sit on.
[etherman]: "if words are gender specific and are read as such..." The point is that I don't intend my use of "his" in such a situation to be gender-specific, and have no control over how it is read. I've noticed a trend lately in technical writing to assume that a network administrator, for example, is female; "See your net admin; she may be able to help". It's harmless, but it's political correctness, and thus annoys me, but only slightly. |
|
| |
Many textbooks contain an introductory paragraph like "Throughout this book, we have used the pronouns "he" and "his" to refer to a person of unspecified gender. This is for grammatical simplification only and is not intended to represent a bias towards either gender." |
|
| |
I consider my "his/her" in the 1st sentence to be shorthand for this statement. |
|
| |
//The point is that I don't intend my use of "his" in such a situation to be gender-specific, and have no control over how it is read.// |
|
| |
exactly, you dont have control over how it is read. so quoting some academic isn't going to change things. using 'his' communicates masculinity, therefore, if this is not what you intend, you are communicating incorrectly. |
|
| |
//using 'his' communicates masculinity//
Well, not necessarily. It may do so to you, in the same way that using "their" communicates plurality to some. I am only responsible for what I mean, not for what you think I mean, so long as there is some reasonable degree of justification for me to assume that what I say can be interpreted how I intend. |
|
| |
//so long as there is some reasonable degree of justification for me to assume that what I say can be interpreted how I intend.// |
|
| |
I don't see how 'his' can be interpreted as anything other than masculine. but I'm sure can quote some obscure academic to prove me wrong. sigh. |
|
| |
//When a person deletes his account, all his ideas get moved to the Orphanage//
Alternative Serving Suggestion:
"When a person deletes an account, all the ideas associated with that account get moved to the Orphanage"
(-) If you like an idea that much then make your own copy. |
|
| |
phundug: that is just sheer, and somewhat bigoted, laziness on the part of the authors. I have never found a sentence using "he," "she," "him," "her," "his" or "hers" that cannot be rewritten to be gender neutral. In general, the simplest mechanism is to refer to people in plural - "The traders...their..." Another common usage is to switch off between him and her ("The trader...her...," "The broker...he..."), but that is more artifical. |
|
| |
This is just good manners, although in a modern business environment, most of us actually have a contractual obligation to be "sensitive," "inclusive," or just plain non-sexist. |
|
| |
Meanwhile, back at the idea, it'd be fine with me if the ideas parented by a now deceased account simply showed up as owned by "halfbakery" or "archive" or some such generic account and remained there. |
|
| |
there was an idea here? well why didn't somebody (he,she,they) say... |
|
| |
[+] your ideas are like your children. When you place them here, you set them free. Nobody forced you to place them here. And you can't "really" delete them, since people will remember them and re-post the essence & echos. |
|
| |
This is the place where personal control ends and sharing begins. |
|
| |
How beautiful, sophocles. |
|
| |
Beautiful as it may seem, you own your words. If you decide to go maybe it is only fair that you get to take your things with you. |
|
| |
You can't do anything about other bakers remembering your ideas or annotations, but then that's not your problem anymore is it? |
|
| |
My ideas are like fat ingrateful children that no one wants. If I ever go, my ideas are destined for a hard life on the streets. |
|
| |
And I think if [jutta] deleted her account, this place would pull a "House of Usher" style deletion. |
|
| |
//you own your words//. I agree. Although it may seem like you have given it all to jutta, she seems to have allowed all rights to be kept (at least that is what I have gathered from various discussions). |
|
| |
jutta probably has the right to keep anything that she wants, but the current state of affairs allows you to get rid of anything without a trace, which I think is good. Maybe a statement to this effect should be put up on the new idea screen. |
|
| |
That said, the option to put your ideas up for adoption would be nice. |
|
| |
What happens to 'zombie' profiles, the ones that haven't been deleted, but rather abandoned. [RWED] who I happened upon, wrote two ideas, annoed on two others, and then never came back, is a good example of a zombie. |
|
| |
Is there a time limit where he can resume his account before it is deleted, or is it left to rot in un-death? |
|
| |
Not un-death, just suspended animation. Like Michael Jackson. |
|
| |
Although Jutta is in control, I still like this idea. Rather than an orphanage, maybe it could be more like a laundry room, where stuff is sorted, folded, stacked and possibly taken out to be used. [+] |
|
| |
Nice one. But when you adopt an idea, the idea should
always have a unmodifiable [adopted] in the beginning.
Avoiding unfair credits to the guy who adopted it. |
|
| |
The idea can also have the original owner's DNA ( user
id, preferably the index number of the user) somehwere
in the database, visible only to moderator/owner of HB. |
|
| |
OK, sorry for churning but my God, look at [bristolz]'s first anno. |
|
| |
Well the obvious solution here is to save the text of ideas that impress you then repost them verbatim after the originator leaves in a fit of pique. Claim authorship! Chortle merrily when others take umbrage! |
|
| |
I ofen weep for the lack of "War Weapons", an idea once posted in which each and every household item had a predesignated use as a weapon, in the event that fighting soldiers exhausted all regular weapons. |
|
| |