h a l f b a k e r yYou gonna finish that?
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,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
I propose a measure of ridiculousness based on this algorithm:
Count the number of made up words, call it a.
Take the average stupidity of the impossible ideas presented, call that b.
Take the amount of funny/awesome presented, call that c.
Ridiculousness = b(a-c+1).
For instance, this
idea would warrant the following:
a = 5
b = 4
c = 0
riduculousness = 4(5-0+1) = 24.
Therefore, I score a 24 on the ridiculosity scale, which is an impossible idea, meaning I score 30, yet another impossible idea, 36, 42, 48...
[link]
|
| |
Ridiculous: adj. Deserving or inspiring ridicule; absurd, preposterous, or silly. |
|
| |
If you are using 'ridiculous' in the first sense, I don't think using made-up words is necessarily deserving of ridicule (Shakespeare's plays seem to be fairly well-regarded, for example). If you are using it in the second sense, I don't think funny ideas are less absurd or silly than serious ones. |
|
| |
And your last sentence makes no sense; why is scoring 24 an impossible idea? But, you do deserve some credit for coming up with a ridiculous definition of ridiculousness, you slithy tove. |
|
| |
What is this idea's usefullness? |
|
| |
Isn't this notion already covered by the Absolute Drivel scale? |
|
| |