Forum Search
Forum Posts matching all AND Creator is "msgman" In all forums :| Author | Message |
|---|
msgman
| | #1 posted March 4, 2007 at 4:21pm (EST) |
I tried to use the markup code listed on the help page for inverse green in a comment, but it didn't work - instead, I got the spellecker telling me that "igreen" isn't a word! Inverse red seemed to work OK, though.
Is this a bug, or am I doing something wrong? |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
msgman
| | #2 posted August 12, 2006 at 1:11pm (EST) |
... the use by some members of avatars which are not entirely "work safe" is a bit of a problem.
My employer is perfectly happy for staff to use the Internet for personal purposes so long as it doesn't interfere with work - so browsing the web or doing email in my lunch break is entirely acceptable. But the company does have a strict "no pornography" rule, and not only filters sites which display it but can also discipline staff for viewing it. And even a fairly small image, such as one used as an avatar, can fall foul of this restriction. This means I can't openly use SC at work, even if it's on my own time, as if someone else were to see some of the avatars in use then the site would be added to the block list.
I appreciate that this may seem a bit OTT to some people, but I suspect that I'm not the only person who'd have problems with SC on a work computer for this reason. Could there be enough justification here for a slightly more restrictive policy on what images are permissible in avatars? |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
msgman
| | #3 posted March 8, 2006 at 4:11pm (EST) |
It does bother me a little that a large percentage of people are gullible enough to think that DVC is fact. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the idea of doing something to make it clear to cinema viewers that it isn't. But I suspect they'd merely think it's just another part of the conspiracy  |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
msgman
| | #4 posted March 6, 2006 at 5:45pm (EST) |
Sounds like eczema. I agree with Amanda - ask at a pet store, where there's a good chance someone will know. But the cat really does need to be seen by a vet - maybe there's a veterinary charity in your region that can arrange it at no cost to you. Again, that's something that a pet store will be able to give advice on. |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
msgman
| | #5 posted December 28, 2005 at 4:19pm (EST) |
jettles wrote:
> happy birthday msgman!!!
> question for you: did you receive your secret santa gift???
Yes, I did! It's currently sitting on the mantel in the front room! |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
msgman
| | #6 posted September 19, 2005 at 2:05pm (EST) |
Anyone in the US who thinks that gas prices are too high is, frankly, an idiot. You already get the stuff a lot cheaper than the rest of the world; if you have to play catch up with the rest of us for a while then, painful as it may be, it's necessary. |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
msgman
| | #8 posted August 21, 2005 at 3:56pm (EST) |
He's from Australia, and you mention astrology, so my guess is that the stars have something to do with this. Swimming at night, maybe, and in the northern hemisphere (since you can't swim in the Atlantic in Australia, and the author of the riddle is from the US, it makes sense to assume that the action takes place on the US east coast). But that makes things backwards as far as direction-finding is concerned for him, if navigating by the stars. So maybe he got lost somehow, and this is directly related to his death.
Am I on the right track?
Also, can you confirm that the phrase "he collapses and dies" means that the thing he dies of is the thing that causes him to collapse (as would be the case in, for example, a heart attack), rather than his death being caused by a separate event to the collapse (as would be the case if he fell and hit his head). |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
msgman
| | #9 posted August 12, 2005 at 5:07pm (EST) |
You can zoom right in on my house as well - it's in one of the few parts of the UK that has hi-resolution coverage. |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
msgman
| | #10 posted July 21, 2005 at 6:00pm (EST) |
I've avoided commenting on this before, but this seems an appropriate moment to join in the debate. Before I comment on these points specifically, I want to say that I entirely agree with the aim of getting rid of the "wees" effect and over-picky qualifiers. My comments that follow should be seen as observations and suggestions rther than criticisms.
bill wrote:
> This is complex issue. I'm not sure I can respond without rambling
> on about it for a page or so. I'll try to be concise.
>
> 1. I'm not sure if recent surveys are a fair measure of the effect
> the change in qual has had.
> a. There have been more than the usual new
> surveys (an increase of something like 50% from around 50 per week
> to around 75).
This bothers me somewhat. I don't have time to visit the site every day, and with the increase in quantity of new surveys I find that I get less pleasure from looking through new ones - it feels as though I'm being swamped. I'd prefer a smaller number of surveys that I can spend a bit of time debating in the comments than a large number which just need to be cleared out of the way.
> b. Most of the new surveys are coming from
> one person, whizkid.
> c. Most of the surveys on the "This Weeks'
> Worst" are by whizkid.
I suppose I could just filter these, in that case. Maybe I should, if one user is solely responsble for both the excess quantity and poor quality. But it somehow feels like that should be a last resort - rather like sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending that someone isn't talking.
> 3. My Views on Qual
> a. Actually, when I made the recent changes,
> I didn't really think they would help that much. They seemed to have
> helped more than I thought they would, though.
> b. I think the "wees effect" has been eliminated
> and that's an accomplishment.
I agree, but I think there have been some unwanted side-effects. Wees has a postive aspect, where several people agree that there's something wrong with a survey but can't really express why, and then someone else manages to summarise the problems in a way that the creator can understand. Now, there's no way for someone to try and explain another qualifier's objection to the SC, and I can see that this could be frustrating.
> c. I think the quality of surveys has dipped
> a little, but this was expected and I think acceptable. I think this
> goes along with eliminating the "wees effect".
> d. I don't feel that attached to the way
> Qual is now. Though, I also don't want to just go back to the way
> it was either.
> e. On some level, I think the whole idea
> of Qual is flawed and I'd like to consider "outside the box" solutions
> in which Qual is replaced by something completely different.
I think some kind of rate-limiting would be a possible solution - make people's ability to create new surveys depend on their average ranking for ones they've already done (using some kind of weighted formula so that people aren't forever punished for their newbie errors) - the higher your average rating, the more surveys you are allowed to have active at any one time. Maybe combine this with having qualification open, but non-controlling - people can read each other's comments, but an SC can ignore them if they want and let the survey qualify anyway. But, of course, if they don't respond to comments in qual then it could affect their ability to create more surveys in future.
> f. I'd like to simplify things, in general.
> So, solutions in which I eliminate something are more appealing to
> me than solutions in which I make things more complex.
> g. I'd like to have a system that encourages
> people to create surveys.
> h. I'd like to see more of the regular users
> creating surveys.
Speaking for myself, I've been put off creating surveys because there always seems to be far too many in qual anyway, and I don't want to add to them. As a general rule, I only create surveys when things are a bit quieter - I do it as much to contribute to the site as to get my own questions out there, and if I feel that there isn't a need for more new surveys at the moment then I'm much less likely to make the effort to create one. At the risk of sounding a bit pompous, I think that I generally create pretty good surveys, but creating good surveys takes effort and I'm less willing to make that effort if I feel that by doing so I'm merely contributing further to an already over-long list of new ones. |
Next page (only 10 shown here) |
|
- Twitter 
- Facebook 