h a l f b a k e r y"My only concern is that it wouldn't work, which I see as a problem."
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.
|
There needs to be some kind of standardized hierarchical
quantification of disregard.
so for instance:
rat's ass
NT flying fuck
BT two shits
etc.
complementary
Expanded_20Meh_20Indication
[FlyingToaster, Feb 27 2013]
[link]
|
| |
What about a scale of fishbones and croissants, maybe +/- 2.5 of each? |
|
| |
I don't know, in the case of HB ideas i usually think of there
being
levels of disregard within the 0 fishbones, 0 croissants
category. So the ultimate divestment would be 0
fishbones, 0 croissants, 0 annos, 10 paragraph idea and
extensive linking, all by the author. That would be
something like saying, "the HB doesn't give a flying fuck
through a rolling
donut about your idea". Whereas, 0 fishbones, 0 croissants,
but multiple annos -- but all the annos are on a complete
tangent and devolve into flaming -- would be something
less strong like, "HB doesn't give a rat's ass about your idea.
Whereas, any thing with multiple fishbones I would not say
is in the category of not having a fuck or a shit or a rat's ass
given about it, since it has inspired energy of some kind,
and so wouldn't indicate divestment as much as it would
repulsion, I would say, or revulsion, or ire. |
|
| |
This regularised scale of indifference should be described as a mehtric. |
|
| |
// a mehtric // +
The idea, not not much. If you want a precision, rate it on a scale of 0 to 100. Language is used for better reasons than precise quantification, and I don't want to fear that by using a phrase that fits the context that I will be implying some precise level of disregard. |
|
| |