Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
The best part about this entire clusterfuck of a thread is some of the vitriol and insults used to define a person while stating that said person shouldn't have a second account because said person calls people names.
The best part about this entire clusterfuck of a thread is some of the vitriol and insults used to define a person while stating that said person shouldn't have a second account because said person calls people names.
Believe me, we see the irony. One of the reasons I wanted to close shop on the whole thread.
I just still fail to see the problem with this one account. Do we really believe everyone is going to start creating duplicate accts if we let The Big Capp Dogg come back? It was approved before it began (right?), the posts were sporadic (22 in the seven month period), and we all knew who was behind it. I swear, IMO, why does it matter so much who is behind it? If I were behind it, would it be so big of a deal? It was/is funny & it makes the majority of posters laugh. Yes, not all, but I stand by what I say when I say the majority.
FTR, if people are going to start creating duplicate accts, you had better go vote for pancakes.
I would like to address a couple of your questions:
"Why does it matter so much who is behind it? If I were behind it, would it be so big of a deal? " For me, it does not matter who is behind it. If anybody would have posted those 22 posts (including you), I would not have found them funny and would still have voted "no" in bringing the account back.
Just a few follow up comments. No, I am not a robot. Yes, I find a lot of things funny. :-) <-----see, a smiley face as proof. :-) <----second smiley face in one post!
The best part about this entire clusterfuck of a thread is some of the vitriol and insults used to define a person while stating that said person shouldn't have a second account because said person calls people names.
Believe me, we see the irony. One of the reasons I wanted to close shop on the whole thread.
Just for the record, my comment was strictly observation, not a mod callout or opinion on any of the vagaries of civic duty, statistical polling, the law, the education system, naming use and copyrights, or humor and irony. Which actually, under different agendas, could have made for interesting forum discussion topics.
I just still fail to see the problem with this one account. Do we really believe everyone is going to start creating duplicate accts if we let The Big Capp Dogg come back? It was approved before it began (right?), the posts were sporadic (22 in the seven month period), and we all knew who was behind it. I swear, IMO, why does it matter so much who is behind it? If I were behind it, would it be so big of a deal? It was/is funny & it makes the majority of posters laugh. Yes, not all, but I stand by what I say when I say the majority.
FTR, if people are going to start creating duplicate accts, you had better go vote for pancakes.
I would like to address a couple of your questions:
"Why does it matter so much who is behind it? If I were behind it, would it be so big of a deal? " For me, it does not matter who is behind it. If anybody would have posted those 22 posts (including you), I would not have found them funny and would still have voted "no" in bringing the account back.
Just a few follow up comments. No, I am not a robot. Yes, I find a lot of things funny. :-) <-----see, a smiley face as proof. :-) <----second smiley face in one post!
I guess smiley faces would be the first thing a robot would come up with if it were to become artificially conscious, and make an attempt at humour.
For me, it does not matter who is behind it. If anybody would have posted those 22 posts (including you), I would not have found them funny and would still have voted "no" in bringing the account back.
For me, it does not matter who is behind it. If anybody would have posted those 22 posts (including you), I would not have found them funny and would still have voted "no" in bringing the account back.
New poll: who actually believes this?
Are you saying that you do not believe what I said? Or do you believe that the majority would find what I said dishonest or disingenuous? Or both?
The best part about this entire clusterfuck of a thread is some of the vitriol and insults used to define a person while stating that said person shouldn't have a second account because said person calls people names.
I was just messing around because I thought this thread was a joke and some people were taking it too seriously. I don't think Juggs is a douchebag or a breathing piece of human shit, just a humourless fuck.
Believe me, we see the irony. One of the reasons I wanted to close shop on the whole thread.
Just for the record, my comment was strictly observation, not a mod callout or opinion on any of the vagaries of civic duty, statistical polling, the law, the education system, naming use and copyrights, or humor and irony. Which actually, under different agendas, could have made for interesting forum discussion topics.
Since it's my field and the world's slowest day at work I just wanted to share some quick fun facts about the poll. Let's assume nobody voted twice (I think the two accounts bit has been discussed once or twice here), and that nobody's voted affected anyone else's. As it stands at the time of me starting to do the work the vote stands at 70-17 in favour of the Capp Dogg's reinstatement.
That's 70/87 or roughly 80% to 20%. A 99% credible interval (basically a confidence interval but roided up computation) is bounded at [69.5%, 91.4%]. This means any reasonable test, say 50% to find a majority, would show statistically significant evidence to support the hypothesis that Inforoo wants the Capp Dog back. Reject the null all that, you don't want to see that part.
Here's that fact visualized in a probability distribution. The implied distribution is in black and this absurd 50% of people might still not want the Capp Dog back assumption is in red. Doesn't look like it fits.
More numbers! If it were a 50/50 split on opinion about Capp Dog, the odds of us seeing a 70-17 vote (or more dramatic in the "yea" column) is 9.78E-08. That's 0.000000098%, or roughly 1 in 10.2 million. It's close to the odds you'll get Ebola in the next year (assuming you live in the US of A) at 1 in 13.3 million, and those of North Korea winning the next World Cup.
Here's that fact visualized in a probability distribution. The assumed distribution is in black and our place on that is red. Doesn't look like it fits.
As for this idea that we'd need 21,000 people to vote to make it valid,or 10,500 yeas, I think that's a bit silly. People aren't contesting election results because they don't have 100% turnout. In every US presidential election (I know electoral college, let's pretend it's a popular vote) since 1828 the result has been decided by a margin slimmer than the remainder of the voter turnout. So if you want to be pedantic about this, then there's no real true democratically elected president in the US in 200 years.
I voted yes. Capp Dogg adds value to the forum which is more than can be said of most of 20,999 other members. Will do a survey analysis on that if you want.
edit: Woops, figures are huge. edit 2: Spotted a small error in code. Figure 2 updated accordingly. Typed numbers still correct.
Are you saying that you do not believe what I said? Or do you believe that the majority would find what I said dishonest or disingenuous? Or both?
I was just posing a question. You can probably guess my answer.
Fair enough, I would venture a guess that you do not think I am being honest. I would argue that I may be a lot of things, but dishonest is not one of them.
I have had several frank conversations with Juggs in my time here. Sometimes we agreed, sometimes we did not. But I feel like I was always honest with him and/or anything concerning his involvement on this board.
The best part about this entire clusterfuck of a thread is some of the vitriol and insults used to define a person while stating that said person shouldn't have a second account because said person calls people names.
I was just messing around because I thought this thread was a joke and some people were taking it too seriously. I don't think Juggs is a douchebag or a breathing piece of human shit, just a humourless fuck.
That's weird. I feel like I'm the only one around here who doesn't take this shit seriously.
I was just messing around because I thought this thread was a joke and some people were taking it too seriously. I don't think Juggs is a douchebag or a breathing piece of human shit, just a humourless fuck.
That's weird. I feel like I'm the only one around here who doesn't take this shit seriously.
I was just messing around because I thought this thread was a joke and some people were taking it too seriously. I don't think Juggs is a douchebag or a breathing piece of human shit, just a humourless fuck.
That's weird. I feel like I'm the only one around here who doesn't take this shit seriously.
Well you damn well should, or this is all in vain.
We're all a mess of paradoxes. Believing in things we know can't be true. We walk around carrying feelings too complicated and contradictory to express. But when it all becomes too big, and words aren't enough to help get it all out, there's always music.
Post by LoveLuckLaughter on Oct 29, 2014 0:50:32 GMT -5
Also, @rorybbellows, do you want this HST poster I have for you that WS was saving for you? If so, let me know. I have had it in a tube since, well it seems like forever.
We're all a mess of paradoxes. Believing in things we know can't be true. We walk around carrying feelings too complicated and contradictory to express. But when it all becomes too big, and words aren't enough to help get it all out, there's always music.
Also, @rorybbellows, do you want this HST poster I have for you that WS was saving for you? If so, let me know. I have had it in a tube since, well it seems like forever.
I have an HST poster - this one: It's got what purport to be his initials on it. Actually, I know for a fact they're his initials. I just don't know for a fact that he signed them. I got it back in the 1980s. It's prominently displayed in my living room.
Maybe you just haven't given him enough time? I am not friends with him on there, but I have 17 mutual friends with him, and 10 of them are from here, so I wouldn't think that he's especially discriminating. Not that those 10 people aren't awesome; just that I'm pretty sure he's not personally friends with them. Same with 5 or 6 of the other 7 mutual friends for that matter.
