| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Catuli |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 23:18:11
Perhaps my title offers more than it can deliver, especially since I'm asking a question rather than suggesting a strategy. Can "ten percent" be made into one word by being recast as "10%," likewise can "six inches" be condensed (so to speak) as 6"?
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 02/23/2007 : 10:07:19
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
This wasn't a troll for votes, but thank you for them, anyway.
My point is that Whipper said he wouldn't vote for a review where "=" is used for equal and "+" is used for and. I assumed he would include "-" being used for less.
Assume nothing.  |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/23/2007 : 08:31:14
This wasn't a troll for votes, but thank you for them, anyway.
My point is that Whipper said he wouldn't vote for a review where "=" is used for equal and "+" is used for and. I assumed he would include "-" being used for less. My review is a mathmatical one, which I think works (if you know the film).
|
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 02/23/2007 : 02:10:31
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by george_kaplan
quote:
Yes but... what about my The Nude Bomb review?
Hmmm...I probably wouldn't vote for it, if that's what you are asking.
The joke is that Max Smart was known as Agent 86. The movie wasn't very good mostly because it didn't include his fellow agent and love interest Agent 99. So it was (Agent) 86 minus (Agent) 99 equals negative 13. We all know how unlucky the number 13 is, so a minus 13 must be extraordinarily unlucky (as it was for that film). Get it?
(Sometimes I'm just too clever for my own good, I am!)
I didn't realize there was a Get Smart film, but when I looked at the credits, there was also an Agent 13 in it. I thought maybe that was a factor too. |
| Shiv |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 22:16:57
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
The joke is that Max Smart was known as Agent 86. The movie wasn't very good mostly because it didn't include his fellow agent and love interest Agent 99. So it was (Agent) 86 minus (Agent) 99 equals negative 13. We all know how unlucky the number 13 is, so a minus 13 must be extraordinarily unlucky (as it was for that film). Get it?
Very good. I didn't get it previously, but had already voted for it anyway as I trusted that it must be something meaningful.
I'm voting for it now. When I checked it out on imdb (I didn't know it was Maxwell Smart movie) I couldn't see 99 - and didn't know the series well enough to remember who that was. I will also admit to sometime voting for what I think are clever reviews even if I'm not quite sure I understand them?!! |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 15:55:23
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
The joke is that Max Smart was known as Agent 86. The movie wasn't very good mostly because it didn't include his fellow agent and love interest Agent 99. So it was (Agent) 86 minus (Agent) 99 equals negative 13. We all know how unlucky the number 13 is, so a minus 13 must be extraordinarily unlucky (as it was for that film). Get it?
Very good. I didn't get it previously, but had already voted for it anyway as I trusted that it must be something meaningful. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 15:48:27
quote:
Originally posted by george_kaplan
quote:
Yes but... what about my The Nude Bomb review?
Hmmm...I probably wouldn't vote for it, if that's what you are asking.
The joke is that Max Smart was known as Agent 86. The movie wasn't very good mostly because it didn't include his fellow agent and love interest Agent 99. So it was (Agent) 86 minus (Agent) 99 equals negative 13. We all know how unlucky the number 13 is, so a minus 13 must be extraordinarily unlucky (as it was for that film). Get it?
(Sometimes I'm just too clever for my own good, I am!)
|
| roger_thornhill |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 14:49:30
quote:
Yes but... what about my The Nude Bomb review?
Hmmm...I probably wouldn't vote for it, if that's what you are asking. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 12:46:27
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
And before anyone asks, boolean logic formulas are generally frowned upon, since it's only techie geeks who know what's going on.
Hey, Booleans gotta live too you know! 
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 11:36:22
Ah right, yes, this is what I thought your policy was. I didn't really think of your example as a formula, since I was thinking of that as involving two people/things resulting in a single combined result of some sort. So "Connery + Johansson = banality" would be fine (in the imagined horror of this combo appearing). What about "Connery + Johansson are banal"? I'm assuming this wouldn't be. "Connery, Johansson are banal" would be, though, in contrast. Anyway, I don't want to get into a discussion about this, as I have always been perfectly happy with decisions in this regard. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 11:27:51
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
And before anyone asks, boolean logic formulas are generally frowned upon, since it's only techie geeks who know what's going on.
Well... that's... er... logical.
(I guess.)
|
| benj clews |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 11:05:43
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Benj, if pluses are now universally allowed in this manner, is it the same for ampersands? They definitely stand for words, but the meaning is only the same as the plus usage in your example.
Perhaps I should have made myself a little clearer... I was trying to demonstrate a mathematical formula, i.e. the sum of Stiller and Wilson equals the sum of Starsky and Hutch.
If you're planning to use + instead of & or 'and', it will be treated as a word. Usually it's pretty clear that someone is writing a formula view (there's usually an = in there) and if not, then the + will be counted as a word.
And before anyone asks, boolean logic formulas are generally frowned upon, since it's only techie geeks who know what's going on. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 09:20:59
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
Thanks benj!! I've always thought that, and have used the + once or twice when it seemed like it worked but I never knew if it was okay. And thanks to Benj & the MERPs for the smathering of new approvals!!
Although it may be legal, you won't catch me writing, or voting for, a review where "=" is used to mean is or where "+" is used to mean and.
I don't think I am alone in my dislike of such reviews.
Yes but... what about my The Nude Bomb review? |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 09:09:37
I am not too keen on mathematical symbols when they could only be replaced by words, but in most cases they could be replaced by punctuation e.g. "Stiller, Wilson: Starsky, Hutch". O.K., this does not work quite as well, but since it's the same type of idea it would be difficult to draw a clear line between punctuation and other symbols. I have recently submitted a review of the form "W > X > Y > Z". The symbols do not equate to words, but are just meant to indicate progression - if this weren't allowed, I would just use commas.
Benj, if pluses are now universally allowed in this manner, is it the same for ampersands? They definitely stand for words, but the meaning is only the same as the plus usage in your example. |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 03:27:41
I didn't say I used a symbol to get around using what would be an additional word. I said I have used them once or twice in a situation where it seemed quite appropriate. In looking, I used = twice, < (or >, can't remember which), and have a Romeo + Juliet review pending that uses the +. In those cases, it had the effect I intended and did not have the effect of getting around a fifth word. |
| Catuli |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 02:32:30
Well this is great. Thanks for the feedback everyone. Especialy you, Benj, as your opinion has the weight of law.
|
