Steaming Platefuls of Smut, and Other Diversions

Sorry Lou, but the Cliffs Notes version of this one is the same as all the other ones, i.e.:

A bunch of winegeeks get together to eat. They drink a lot of wine, make fun of Brad Kane, and generally interact in a zany fashion. They then head home, drunker and wiser, having learned that despite their differences they're all linked by the simple, purely human desire to do their utmost to lead dignified lives of meaning and purpose in a world gone mad.

Standard issue stuff, didn't think I needed to repost it.
 
originally posted by Brad Kane:
Truth be told, I very tactfully and diplomatically told Herr Cod that his writings the past few years weren't up to his glory days, circa '99-'04. He mentioned that with Mistress Lisa now out of med school, he does indeed have more time to focus on his tomes. It's good to have you back, Chris! That said, your posts the past few years beat a sharp stick in the eye.

Btw, as for pictures, the viewing public is an insatiably ravenous beast and I try to keep its hunger pangs at bay.
Click to expand...

Not to quibble, but I can't really recall you ever evincing either tact or diplomacy. It's one of the things we love about you.

So you're posting all these pictures of plates online somewhere? Is there a dining fetish BB where that kind of thing is hot stuff?
 
originally posted by Chris Coad:
Sorry Lou, but the Cliffs Notes version of this one is the same as all the other ones, i.e.:

A bunch of winegeeks get together to eat. They drink a lot of wine, make fun of Brad Kane, and generally interact in a zany fashion. They then head home, drunker and wiser, having learned that despite their differences they're all linked by the simple, purely human desire to do their utmost to lead dignified lives of meaning and purpose in a world gone mad.

Standard issue stuff, didn't think I needed to repost it.
Click to expand...

I miss the prongs .
 
originally posted by Scott Kraft:
originally posted by Chris Coad:
Sorry Lou, but the Cliffs Notes version of this one is the same as all the other ones, i.e.:

A bunch of winegeeks get together to eat. They drink a lot of wine, make fun of Brad Kane, and generally interact in a zany fashion. They then head home, drunker and wiser, having learned that despite their differences they're all linked by the simple, purely human desire to do their utmost to lead dignified lives of meaning and purpose in a world gone mad.

Standard issue stuff, didn't think I needed to repost it.
Click to expand...

I miss the prongs &_lt;sigh&_gt;.
Click to expand...

Oh, I still keep scores. I just don't post them because they proved controversial. And I have a firm policy of shrinking from controversy.

I diddled the code in my quote, but you might want to try *sigh*. More plaintive when visible.
 
I don't agree. Have you read O'Reilly's essay on 2.0? The differences are much more than a repackaging and refinement. The very technological foundations have shifted dramatically. Not to mention what the prevalence of web services has meant. These did not exist in 1.0 at all. And even if you judge purely by user interaction, AJAX is more than a dot release. It's a library of controls that make for new kinds of user experience, like Google Maps [another app that couldn't exist in the 1.0 framework].

Ultimately, to say 2.0 is 1.4 is like saying the internet is just a better version of dial-up.
 
originally posted by Scott Kraft:
[sigh] ** to me means bold. i'm very 2.0 that way.
Click to expand...

That reading is very pre-WWW, Scott. As is // for Italicized, __ for underlined and the always popular smilies. As I have HTML disabled in Thunderbird, I still rely on those conventions in email on occasion.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by Chris Coad:
originally posted by Brad Kane:
Truth be told, I very tactfully and diplomatically told Herr Cod that his writings the past few years weren't up to his glory days, circa '99-'04. He mentioned that with Mistress Lisa now out of med school, he does indeed have more time to focus on his tomes. It's good to have you back, Chris! That said, your posts the past few years beat a sharp stick in the eye.

Btw, as for pictures, the viewing public is an insatiably ravenous beast and I try to keep its hunger pangs at bay.
Click to expand...

Not to quibble, but I can't really recall you ever evincing either tact or diplomacy.
Click to expand...

Just making sure you're getting my meaning.

As for Sharon and the '64 Petillant, that's not a stretch. She loves Champagne and Petillant sec is, well, sec and bubbly. The '62 was a demi, as in having some sugar, which is what she usually dislikes about Chenin. So for her to have her eyes opened by it is saying something. Too bad you drank yours so quick. You're usually the laggard at the table.
 
originally posted by Scott Kraft:
I don't agree. Have you read O'Reilly's essay on 2.0? The differences are much more than a repackaging and refinement. The very technological foundations have shifted dramatically. Not to mention what the prevalence of web services has meant. These did not exist in 1.0 at all. And even if you judge purely by user interaction, AJAX is more than a dot release. It's a library of controls that make for new kinds of user experience, like Google Maps [another app that couldn't exist in the 1.0 framework].

Ultimately, to say 2.0 is 1.4 is like saying the internet is just a better version of dial-up.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right. I hear the kids are wild about FaceSpace and MyTweet and all that stuff, but it seems like mostly bells and whistles and marketing to me. I haven't read the essay in full, no, just seen excerpts. Do you have a link?

I'm not sure what you mean by comparing dialup to the internet. Dialup is just a means of connecting, one that served me just fine until about two years ago. High-speed makes things faster, so there's more convenience, and it's certainly more addictive, but after switching over I didn't see any fundamental difference. Of course, I'm a known Luddite.
 
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by Scott Kraft:
[sigh] ** to me means bold. i'm very 2.0 that way.
Click to expand...

That reading is very pre-WWW, Scott. As is // for Italicized, __ for underlined and the always popular smilies. As I have HTML disabled in Thunderbird, I still rely on those conventions in email on occasion.

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...

Indeed. I remember well. It's also the way most PHPers and Perlers write today. No time for full markup.
 
originally posted by Chris Coad:
originally posted by Scott Kraft:
I don't agree. Have you read O'Reilly's essay on 2.0? The differences are much more than a repackaging and refinement. The very technological foundations have shifted dramatically. Not to mention what the prevalence of web services has meant. These did not exist in 1.0 at all. And even if you judge purely by user interaction, AJAX is more than a dot release. It's a library of controls that make for new kinds of user experience, like Google Maps [another app that couldn't exist in the 1.0 framework].

Ultimately, to say 2.0 is 1.4 is like saying the internet is just a better version of dial-up.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right. I hear the kids are wild about FaceSpace and MyTweet and all that stuff, but it seems like mostly bells and whistles and marketing to me. I haven't read the essay in full, no, just seen excerpts. Do you have a link?

I'm not sure what you mean by comparing dialup to the internet. Dialup is just a means of connecting, one that served me just fine until about two years ago. High-speed makes things faster, so there's more convenience, and it's certainly more addictive, but after switching over I didn't see any fundamental difference. Of course, I'm a known Luddite.
Click to expand...

Dial-up vs. Internet is more complicated than speed. I should have been more clear tho. Dial-up services vs. the Internet. It's a long, pedantic explanation. If you want it, I'll give it.

Here's a link to the essay.
 
Okay, now I've read it. Some of it is over my head, but I must say, given the quote: "But there's still a huge amount of disagreement about just what Web 2.0 means, with some people decrying it as a meaningless marketing buzzword, and others accepting it as the new conventional wisdom, I still come down on the side of the former. The comparisons "content management systems vs. 'wikis'" or "personal websites vs. 'blogging'" seem to reflect upgrades in jargon and format, not architecture. And how quantifiable is "harnessing collective intelligence"? Sounds like Mission Statement gobbledeegook to me. Going forward, proactively.

Mostly, the whole "2.0" thing looks like a repackaging/rallying cry after the crash of the dot-com bubble. Do 'users must be treated as co-developers' and 'software above the level of a single device' really seem like quantum leaps? And 'rich user experience' is fine and all, but seems to me to be mostly about frills and costuming, which has certainly become more elaborate and vastly more slick over the past four or five years.

But again, the disclaimer: I fear and spurn the new.
 
originally posted by Scott Kraft:
The very technological foundations have shifted dramatically.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. It's still get and post, marshal and unmarshal. You still fail when your WSDL is old. RSS is way variant from one provider to the next.

...AJAX is more than a dot release.
Click to expand...

It's been around since IE5.

Ultimately, to say 2.0 is 1.4 is like saying the internet is just a better version of dial-up.
Click to expand...

I think some things are very clever and very good and very exciting, but I'm not persuaded that there really is enough there. For example, AJAX gives a great user experience, but it's still programmers' work to do it. Folksonomy, on the other hand, is nice when it works but it has 'tragedy of the commons' faults, not to mention that creative murmurs will be drowned-out by the roar of repetition.

Then there's the scaling problem of most mashups, and, frequently, concomitantly, the trampling of copyright and other IP protections. And lack of correctness because a desktop/departmental user isn't trained in QA techniques.

Et cetera.

So, in sum, some of it is cool and sexy, but it's an extension of 1.0.
 
originally posted by Brad L i l j e q u i s t:
Thanks, that was a delight to come home to.
Click to expand...

The wine stuff, you mean? Or the arcane web architecture subthread?

Either way, glad you enjoyed it.
 
This isn't the place to discuss this.

But I still miss the prongs. Is there a private board where we can get the full write up?
 
originally posted by Brad Kane:
originally posted by Chris Coad:
originally posted by Brad Kane:
Truth be told, I very tactfully and diplomatically told Herr Cod that his writings the past few years weren't up to his glory days, circa '99-'04. He mentioned that with Mistress Lisa now out of med school, he does indeed have more time to focus on his tomes. It's good to have you back, Chris! That said, your posts the past few years beat a sharp stick in the eye.

Btw, as for pictures, the viewing public is an insatiably ravenous beast and I try to keep its hunger pangs at bay.
Click to expand...

Not to quibble, but I can't really recall you ever evincing either tact or diplomacy.
Click to expand...

Just making sure you're getting my meaning.

As for Sharon and the '64 Petillant, that's not a stretch. She loves Champagne and Petillant sec is, well, sec and bubbly. The '62 was a demi, as in having some sugar, which is what she usually dislikes about Chenin. So for her to have her eyes opened by it is saying something. Too bad you drank yours so quick. You're usually the laggard at the table.
Click to expand...

I drank mine so quick because I was interrogating Sharon at the time about her personal history. She wasn't impressed, I wasn't impressed, time to move on to worthier subjects. Look, I wanted to swoon over it. A lot. I just couldn't.
 
originally posted by Scott Kraft:
This isn't the place to discuss this.

But I still miss the prongs. Is there a private board where we can get the full write up?
Click to expand...

Where is the place? Do you have an URL?

As to the real board, you'll have to speak to .sasha about that. I am enjoined from commenting on this matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top