Editing Talk:1607: Supreme Court
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 8: | Line 8: | ||
Isn't the joke that xkcd people are stick men, so the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libra_(constellation)#History_and_mythology libra] could just be a man with a tiny head carrying two buckets..? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.159|162.158.91.159]] 10:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | Isn't the joke that xkcd people are stick men, so the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libra_(constellation)#History_and_mythology libra] could just be a man with a tiny head carrying two buckets..? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.159|162.158.91.159]] 10:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | ||
− | + | ||
Currently there's nothing in the explanation of the titletext that addresses that Justice X is claiming to be ''either'' of two individuals, not even trying to properly impersonate a specific individual. Of course, logically, if they claimed to be a specific person then this specific person they claimed to be could so easily counter-claim. So that approach shouldn't work. But being vague would ''also'' be strange. Unlike a game of Mafia, when there might (occasionally) be reasons to be vague in this manner about one's role (and yet accept that this can look utterly Scummy, if this approach is directed at the Townies) to try to offset targetting by the opposing camp, this should ''still'' not work in a group where everyone already knows each other. So who knows how 'relatively illogical' the two approaches are, to each other... ;) But can anyone explain this better than me? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.152.5|162.158.152.5]] 11:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | Currently there's nothing in the explanation of the titletext that addresses that Justice X is claiming to be ''either'' of two individuals, not even trying to properly impersonate a specific individual. Of course, logically, if they claimed to be a specific person then this specific person they claimed to be could so easily counter-claim. So that approach shouldn't work. But being vague would ''also'' be strange. Unlike a game of Mafia, when there might (occasionally) be reasons to be vague in this manner about one's role (and yet accept that this can look utterly Scummy, if this approach is directed at the Townies) to try to offset targetting by the opposing camp, this should ''still'' not work in a group where everyone already knows each other. So who knows how 'relatively illogical' the two approaches are, to each other... ;) But can anyone explain this better than me? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.152.5|162.158.152.5]] 11:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | ||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
:Anything can be complicated if you make it complicated. To quote Randall on this general subject: [http://spectralbovine.livejournal.com/184852.html "It was just the penis joke"] [[User:WaltG123|WaltG123]] ([[User talk:WaltG123|talk]]) 17:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC) | :Anything can be complicated if you make it complicated. To quote Randall on this general subject: [http://spectralbovine.livejournal.com/184852.html "It was just the penis joke"] [[User:WaltG123|WaltG123]] ([[User talk:WaltG123|talk]]) 17:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− |