Editing Talk:2638: Extended NFPA Hazard Diamond
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
...I think it is intended as a rather clever self-referential joke. Why leave the square empty, except for the rather boring 'real' description? At least the other three standard sub-diamonds have some food for thought in their indicated values. Very unlike Randall to do ''nothing'' in that space when all kinds of real fun could have been had. I think I also believe (along with at least one other editor out there) that this is the particular fun that he decided to have with it. Much more believable than the alternative, IMO. (YMMV, HTH, HAND, ETLA...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.61|162.158.34.61]] 23:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC) | ...I think it is intended as a rather clever self-referential joke. Why leave the square empty, except for the rather boring 'real' description? At least the other three standard sub-diamonds have some food for thought in their indicated values. Very unlike Randall to do ''nothing'' in that space when all kinds of real fun could have been had. I think I also believe (along with at least one other editor out there) that this is the particular fun that he decided to have with it. Much more believable than the alternative, IMO. (YMMV, HTH, HAND, ETLA...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.61|162.158.34.61]] 23:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC) | ||
::If it wasn't for the parentheses I would agree with you. The argument is far from a "stalemate" and the fact you would suggest it is leads me to think that you care more about advancing an implausible pet theory than providing a high quality explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.175|172.69.33.175]] 17:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC) | ::If it wasn't for the parentheses I would agree with you. The argument is far from a "stalemate" and the fact you would suggest it is leads me to think that you care more about advancing an implausible pet theory than providing a high quality explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.175|172.69.33.175]] 17:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC) | ||
β | |||
: Absolutely not. None of the even non-standard symbols are more than four capital letters long. If Randall had meant the text to be anything other than a description, he would have used '''SH'''. The link that calls the white square "Special Hazard" is http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/nfpa.html Furthermore, what exactly is the joke supposed to be, again? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.52|172.70.211.52]] 00:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC) | : Absolutely not. None of the even non-standard symbols are more than four capital letters long. If Randall had meant the text to be anything other than a description, he would have used '''SH'''. The link that calls the white square "Special Hazard" is http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/nfpa.html Furthermore, what exactly is the joke supposed to be, again? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.52|172.70.211.52]] 00:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC) |