The following warnings occurred: | |||||||||||||||
Warning [2] Undefined property: MyLanguage::$archive_pages - Line: 2 - File: printthread.php(287) : eval()'d code PHP 8.2.20 (Linux)
|
![]() |
Punaweb and Poe's Law - Printable Version +- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum) +-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3) +--- Forum: Punatalk (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10) +--- Thread: Punaweb and Poe's Law (/showthread.php?tid=8421) |
Punaweb and Poe's Law - freestate - 01-23-2011 Things have been testy around here lately. While on another forum today I found out about Poe's Law. I'm not a web expert so this was a new one to me. Godwin's Law is about the only other internet convention I'm familiar with. I think its relevant given some folks here sense of humor requires interpretation and Poe's Law would be good thing to keep in mind when posting things intended as "a joke". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law The more you know...[ ![]() RE: Punaweb and Poe's Law - Royall - 01-23-2011 Interesting post freestate..... goes right along with the untitled party law. Put a mixed group of people together and eventually the conversation WILL come around to farts. ;^) Royall RE: Punaweb and Poe's Law - konadave - 01-23-2011 This was a very enlightening post! Thanks!!!! [ ![]() ![]() ![]() |---The Ka'u Web---||---The Kona Forum---||-----Da Kine Hosting-----| | www.KauWeb.com || www.KonaForum.com || www.DaKineHosting.com | RE: Punaweb and Poe's Law - missydog1 - 01-23-2011 Interesting, and both are new to me. [ ![]() The one reason comes to mind why a person wouldn't use a smiley, is if the intent is to make the reader question whether it's a parody/joke or a straight comment. If you tag it with smilies, you lose that ambiguity, which can be used to provoke thought. I agree 100% that if you want to say something is OBVIOUSLY a joke, then be obvious and use the Smilies. Smilies are not enough to make a joke funny if it isn't. RE: Punaweb and Poe's Law - Guest - 01-23-2011 OMG KathyH, when I made a joke and followed it with the “statement” [that’s a joke son that’s a joke] it wasn’t good enough but if I had just put a smiley face it would have been OK? Just what world do you live in, I guess it is a Berkeley thing and us uneducated slobs just don’t understand. Thanks again for your wisdom. The Lack RE: Punaweb and Poe's Law - DanielP - 01-23-2011 Hey Lack, Consider giving it a rest, eh? You too Kathy. et.al. I would consider it a favor. Aw, nevermind Dan RE: Punaweb and Poe's Law - freestate - 01-23-2011 Jeez Tom, let it go. Rob already shut down your other scuffle thread. I just posted this as a point of interest, its seems to come up regularly on forums; not just Punaweb. That is the lack of face to face leads to a lot of misinterpretation. I found it fascinating that it actually had a web "law" ascribed to it so it must be pretty universal. Its cool to me how the web has created its own rules of interaction. Godwin's Law makes a lot of sense, it really is the internet equivalent of calling someone "dumbhead". Edited to remove a smartass comment intended to tweak Tom in the ribs. I think Tom is the kind of guy that doesn't mind a tweak but then remembered his wife's current health issues and decided now probably isn't the time for that kind of horseplay. RE: Punaweb and Poe's Law - David M - 01-23-2011 Can't believe this guy Poe attached his name to something that had been around a long time before 2005. But I didn't know about Godwin's interesting. David Ninole Resident RE: Punaweb and Poe's Law - kimo wires - 01-23-2011 We have ways of making you talk.. RE: Punaweb and Poe's Law - missydog1 - 01-23-2011 quote:freestate posted something interesting and I read the link, both links, thought about it, and made a response to freestate's conclusion. My comment had nothing to do with Tom. It's lame enough that he reacts as if I were pointing to him, and talks more trash to me, but then you tell me to give it a rest when I was innocently participating in a discussion -- a discussion which had no Tom in sight when I made my post. ed. because I was annoyed when I posted that, and I shouldn't post when I'm mad. [ ![]() |