Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
+1, Front Page

By qpt in Op-Ed
Sat Oct 20, 2001 at 10:23:19 PM EST
Tags: etc (all tags)
/etc

The purpose of this article is to present a compelling argument for voting this article to the front page. Each of this article's merits will be stated and then discussed, together with any reasonable objections. However, by the end of the article, the reader will be fully convinced of the article's worth and the strength of reasoning that supports this primary contention.


Perhaps the most initially apparent merit of this article is the quality of writing. The sentence structure is clear and easily comprehensible, and this article as a whole has a minimum of grammatical errors. Furthermore, the spelling and word usage are likewise superb. The overall presentation and language is objective, calm, and neutral. Throughout this article, vocabulary is used exclusively for ease of communication and clarity rather than sophistry.

The content of this article is similarly outstanding. The author clearly possesses a depth of expertise in the subject matter as well as an aptitude for straightforwardly communicating complex nuances of meaning to a casual audience. The author presents a fair and balanced perspective on the issue, while at the same time being upfront about his or her own bias. Equally importantly, this article addresses a limited subject matter and does not fall into the trap of being overly broad.

Admittedly, one might object, claiming that this article is in fact about nothing at all. This would be a mistake of the first order, however, as a careful reader will clearly see that the subject of this article is its own worth. The objector might then continue, arguing that while the above is perhaps true, such is nonetheless not a proper subject for an article. This is patent nonsense, though. Criticism of written works is an established and well-respected type of writing. What is more, in the interest of efficiency, it is reasonable for a piece of writing to criticize itself, thus accomplishing the work of two articles in the space of one.

Finally, and perhaps most compelling, this article is well attuned to the habits and preferences of its readers. Rather than rehashing a weak, tired argument on a topic that has been discussed more than is probably healthy, this article modestly yet effectively presents a strong argument on a topic that is fresh and unexplored. Along these same lines, the content of this article is unlikely to offend or annoy any of the readers, while at the same time providing ample material for discussion and critique.

In conclusion, this article has been clearly demonstrated to be of the utmost quality. Its quality of writing, content, and relevance are all superlative. Because of its awesome virtue, this article deserves nothing less from the readership than to be voted to the front page.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
This is an excellent article.
o It certainly is. 98%

Votes: 171
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Also by qpt


Display: Sort:
+1, Front Page | 63 comments (50 topical, 13 editorial, 2 hidden)
Great article! (4.16 / 6) (#1)
by jesterzog on Sat Oct 20, 2001 at 06:56:49 AM EST

+1 section from me! Thanks for the time and effort you've put into writing it. (This comment is as topical as the article is editorial.)


jesterzog Fight the light


HAHAHAaahaa (1.02 / 50) (#4)
by xriso on Sat Oct 20, 2001 at 07:53:22 AM EST

7h15 C0Mm3N7 5H0u1D b3 M0dD3d 70 0N3!

5 (4.83 / 24) (#6)
by slaytanic killer on Sat Oct 20, 2001 at 08:48:23 AM EST

In this post, I will provide an enlightening link. After looking cursorily at it (and even before clicking on it) the reader will see its relevance to the article and vote this post a 5.

qpt.... (4.78 / 14) (#11)
by Signal 11 on Sat Oct 20, 2001 at 12:33:03 PM EST

qpt, I must compliment you. You've taken the smallest idea and expanded it into the most words of any man I know. Have you considered a career in politics?


--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.
Score: 5 (Funny) (none / 0) (#44)
by warpeightbot on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 01:13:37 PM EST

talk about your damning with faint praise....

[ Parent ]
counterpoints (4.87 / 16) (#13)
by speek on Sat Oct 20, 2001 at 02:47:46 PM EST

I'd like to point out that, although your prose reads easily and with considerable clarity, I noticed an over-dependence on the "to be" verb. As an example, consider your first sentence:

The purpose of this article is to present a compelling argument for voting this article to the front page

I would suggest your use of the verb "is" has muddied the waters here. You have projected your own purposes onto these hapless words and then deluded yourself into thinking they owned the purpose of gaining access to K5's front page.

Each of this article's merits will be stated and then discussed, together with any reasonable objections

But, in fact, only one objection was handled, leaving a host of reasonable objects as a lump under the rug, apparently swept there before you even began writing.

However, by the end of the article, the reader will be fully convinced of the article's worth...

True. I don't dispute this point.

The overall presentation and language is objective, calm, and neutral

I must object to your characterization of your writing as neutral. You clearly come to us with a hidden assumption that your article merits attention. I only point this out to make clear your beginning premise, which you try to hide here.

The author clearly possesses a depth of expertise in the subject matter ...

Here, links should have been provided that demonstrated the author's purported expertise. Although we can accept your word on this as friends and fellow K5'ers, a professionally written article would have provided the necessary supporting material.

The author presents a fair and balanced perspective on the issue...

On the contrary, the article speaks overwhelmingly from the perspective of the author, and barely even mentions the reader(s)' potentially differing perspective.

Admittedly, one might object, claiming that this article is in fact about nothing at all.

At this point, you create a straw man to tear down. The article appears to have a very definite subject - namely, itself. This whole paragraph merely attempts to distract the reader from its other glaring weaknesses that I have enumerated here.

Rather than rehashing a weak, tired argument on a topic that has been discussed more than is probably healthy, this article modestly yet effectively presents a strong argument on a topic that is fresh and unexplored

Here, the article violates its promise of clarity by introducing shocking wordiness and weak grammar, just when we expected it to shine in all its nihilistic glory. And in fact, its self-absorbed soliloquy represents nothing new at all here on K5.

Despite these problems, I am still voting this story to the front page. I disagree with its conclusion, but it's sure to generate some interesting discussion.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees

You'll have to excuse the excess copulating verbs (4.71 / 7) (#14)
by cp on Sat Oct 20, 2001 at 03:45:15 PM EST

By using large numbers of copulating verbs on K5, it is nearly possible to compensate for completely failing to copulate in real life.

HTH

[ Parent ]

Whoa! (3.66 / 6) (#23)
by sasha on Sat Oct 20, 2001 at 09:52:29 PM EST

Can I interest you in a competitively-priced Sarcasm Detector? Specially tuned for use on K5! Comes with digital readout for that extra dose of precision.


--- Signal SIGSIG received. Signature too long.
[ Parent ]

Indeed... (4.33 / 6) (#25)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Sat Oct 20, 2001 at 10:12:59 PM EST

Can I interest you in a competitively-priced Sarcasm Detector? Specially tuned for use on K5! Comes with digital readout for that extra dose of precision.

My bodyweight is muscle and cock MMM
Tenured K5 uberdouchebag Herr mirleid
Meatgazer Frau gr3y


[ Parent ]
this could go on forever (4.00 / 2) (#33)
by dr k on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 03:32:13 AM EST

Can I interest you in a competitively-priced Sarcasm Detector? Specially tuned for use on K5! Comes with digital readout for that extra dose of precision.
Destroy all trusted users!
[ Parent ]
thanks (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by speek on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 04:52:20 PM EST

But, I already have one.

And mine actually works.


--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Sir, are you out of slaw? (none / 0) (#62)
by Bnonn on Tue Apr 30, 2002 at 07:45:58 AM EST

While I cannot refute your value as a troll, your worth as a self-appointed critic is not only questionable but demonstrably poor.

    I'd like to point out that, although your prose reads easily and with considerable clarity, I noticed an over-dependence on the "to be" verb. As an example, consider your first sentence:
This first assertion immediately makes your post suspect. E-Prime is (note, is) a generally pointless and long-winded method of writing, and defeats the purpose of conventional English, particularly in writing forms such as critiques and creative pieces. The author has chosen his style carefully, and has remained consistent with it throughout. Your example sentence is also disingenuous, since you are targeting a well-established and elegant form of introduction--passive structure--to further support your already-irrelevant point.

    I would suggest your use of the verb "is" has muddied the waters here. You have projected your own purposes onto these hapless words and then deluded yourself into thinking they owned the purpose of gaining access to K5's front page.
Irony aside, this statement is incorrect. Nowhere does the author purport the words he is using own any purpose. The article is the device by which he forwards his ideas; the words are merely individually-meaningless tools within the article. Since the article was written by the author, it can be assumed the intent stated is true, for otherwise the article would not exist. There is no need for objectivity here, whether you're a proponent of E-Prime or not, since the article is itself a subjective creation of the author.

Your statement is also--perhaps deliberately--confusing to people reading it, for without an understanding of E-Prime it appears to be circuitous psychoanalysis.

    But, in fact, only one objection was handled, leaving a host of reasonable objects as a lump under the rug, apparently swept there before you even began writing.
Nowhere does the author explicitly state that any objections will be discussed, let alone more than one. The terms are conditional--that these objections are reasonable. It is entirely up to the author to define a reasonable argument, and therefore your objection is entirely without merit.

    I must object to your characterization of your writing as neutral. You clearly come to us with a hidden assumption that your article merits attention. I only point this out to make clear your beginning premise, which you try to hide here.
Since this is a critique (and a recursive one at that) there is a strong capacity for both these characteristics--neutrality and the belief it merits attention--to be true. The article is neutral in the sense of presenting an objective analysis, as a critique should. Attempting to push another definition onto the word "neutral" in this case is clearly impossible due to the author's own use of it: this is obviously not a neutral critique if you take "neutral" to mean "without opinion", and neither should it be, for it would make a poor review if it were.

    Here, links should have been provided that demonstrated the author's purported expertise. Although we can accept your word on this as friends and fellow K5'ers, a professionally written article would have provided the necessary supporting material.
While links could have been provided, they are by no means mandatory. We are asked to judge the author's expertise on the article's own merits. Such is the nature of a recursive critique, and additional links may well have defeated the purpose to some extent. Anyone knowledgeable in the field of writing will immediately recognise that the author is skilled in the trade, and can make his assertion on the merit of the article alone. It is clear that you, on the other hand, are neither skilled in the trade, nor even knowledgeable in the technicalities of writing, since you use an apostrophe on what should correctly be written "K5ers"--thus greatly affecting your own credibility and rendering your objection worthless.

    On the contrary, the article speaks overwhelmingly from the perspective of the author, and barely even mentions the reader(s)' potentially differing perspective.
In this case, it is clear the author is using "balanced" in the same way he did "neutral" earlier. Your continued and deliberate misunderstanding of his intent is useful for your argument, but doesn't give it merit. Clearly, as a critique the article is correctly written from the point of view of the author, and to expand beyond that in any more than a small way would be unacceptable for the writing form.

    At this point, you create a straw man to tear down. The article appears to have a very definite subject - namely, itself. This whole paragraph merely attempts to distract the reader from its other glaring weaknesses that I have enumerated here.
The entire purpose of this paragraph in the article is to create a "straw man to tear down". The author is anticipating a possible objection to the article and "tearing it down" to demonstrate its invalidity.

    Here, the article violates its promise of clarity by introducing shocking wordiness and weak grammar, just when we expected it to shine in all its nihilistic glory. And in fact, its self-absorbed soliloquy represents nothing new at all here on K5.
In fact, I found the aforementioned sentence to be elegant in its construction, and easily understandable. The author has excelled at making a long1 and potentially turgid sentence imminently readable. As an author of five years and someone frequently asked to critique pieces of writing prior to their submission at the academic institution where I'm studying, I feel I am well qualified to comment on this issue, as it is something dealt with extensively in my field of work.

In short, your response is both brilliant and mediocre. As a troll it shines, and I must assume this was its intent. The points all seem not only valid, but insightful upon superficial consideration, while in fact are quite the opposite. As a good-faith criticism of the article however, it is both flawed and completely lacking in a basic understanding of the article's tongue-in-cheek tone.

____________________

  1. the sentence in question is 36 words long. The de facto ideal maximum for this writing form is 20 words.


[ Parent ]
-1, add some links and resubmit. (4.88 / 9) (#18)
by i on Sat Oct 20, 2001 at 05:20:03 PM EST

I suggest this, this and this.

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

-1 (4.80 / 5) (#21)
by wiredog on Sat Oct 20, 2001 at 08:22:32 PM EST

It's meta, not op-ed, resection

Missing <default poll option/>

If there's a choice between performance and ease of use, Linux will go for performance every time. -- Jerry Pournelle

what beauty! (4.00 / 6) (#22)
by Justinfinity on Sat Oct 20, 2001 at 09:50:19 PM EST

this a superb example of form over function. wonderful work.

-Justin
Got water?
BSD. Perl. GCC. Vim. Apple. Rox!
:wq

5.00 (4.00 / 11) (#27)
by pyramid termite on Sat Oct 20, 2001 at 10:45:59 PM EST

Why? Because I say it is.
On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
Oh? (3.50 / 4) (#28)
by qpt on Sat Oct 20, 2001 at 11:05:24 PM EST

I say it is not.

Domine Deus, creator coeli et terrae respice humilitatem nostram.
[ Parent ]

I point out to the both of you. . . (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by tiamat on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 06:12:37 AM EST

. . .that nothing is solved by your incessent bickering. This is an appeal for calm and rationality, which when directly interpreted is really just an insult calling you both childish.

[ Parent ]
Incessant bickering on a web board? (none / 0) (#45)
by pyramid termite on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 01:13:51 PM EST

How could I think of such a thing?
On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Ha! (2.00 / 1) (#46)
by pyramid termite on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 01:22:44 PM EST

You are right! U H@\/3 b33n +r0||3d!!!!!!
On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
I had to vote -1 because... (4.00 / 6) (#29)
by la princesa on Sat Oct 20, 2001 at 11:33:44 PM EST

it's on the wrong site.

Damn, that's Ncredible! (4.00 / 3) (#30)
by localroger on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 12:16:11 AM EST

The link you didn't include didn't forward me to the most amazing thing I've never seen on the web. Too bad I didn't see this in the queue because it would have been --1FFPP for sure.

I can haz blog!

I know I need to check the story queue more often. (5.00 / 3) (#38)
by static on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 08:41:36 AM EST

This "story" is an old, tired gag and definitely not worth its section, let alone front-page. I'm serious.

Wade.



[ Parent ]
My my my.. (3.28 / 7) (#31)
by flikx on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 02:07:13 AM EST

I don't know what to make of this. Perhaps it's an obscure troll, but maybe there is some deeper meaning to all of this!


--
One future, two choices. Oppose them or let them destroy us.
Ahhh! A guideline for humanity... (none / 0) (#32)
by aitrus on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 02:40:40 AM EST

Or, atleast, that's my take. Very well written; atleast now I have something to make people read, who fail to communicate adequately.

Bravo.

You are wrong. (3.83 / 6) (#34)
by fury on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 03:42:23 AM EST

I am right. Clearly the educated reader will realize this and mod my comment to 5. The uneducated reader will reply to this and berate me, but it is of no import, as every word they use in their attempt to belittle me will only demonstrate their own inadequacies and prove that I am right.

Kevin Fox - fury.com
This proofes that you are wrong. (3.00 / 3) (#40)
by casparne on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 10:35:04 AM EST

You are wrong. You statet it by yourself.

[ Parent ]
This Comment (3.60 / 5) (#35)
by Iago on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 05:46:02 AM EST

will most definitely receive the same moderation that this article deserves. (Please let it be <= 0)

I managed to fool the poll (4.00 / 2) (#37)
by Kalani on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 08:33:15 AM EST

I didn't select the option. It seems that the portion of scoop that manages poll statistics isn't very clever about it. :)

-----
"I [think] that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement; in the end the machinery will be revealed and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the checker board."
--Richard Feynman
Similar to.... (4.66 / 6) (#39)
by Eight Star on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 09:03:16 AM EST

A much funnier story Here called This is the Title of the Story, Which is Also found Several Times in the Story Itself.

Mmm (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by fluffy grue on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 01:42:31 PM EST

Quiney.
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

95 votes of 95 (3.00 / 2) (#41)
by sputnik on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 11:03:39 AM EST

95 votes of 95 => 98% (:

indeed (1.00 / 11) (#42)
by tokage on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 12:49:54 PM EST

I love you qpt.

QPT 4 EVAH!!!

Pretending there is something left

is like pretending there was anything at all. - Angela Smith
template (3.50 / 2) (#43)
by montjoy on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 01:00:40 PM EST

Wouldn't it be nice if more submitters used something like this as a template for their stories? Structure is a good thing. 'Course, I guess if everyone did it things would get a little boring.

Impassioned Debate on the Issue of the Article (4.33 / 9) (#47)
by hillct on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 01:30:14 PM EST

This comment has all the virtues of a good comment that will contribute to impassioned debate on the issue of this article.

First, here is the required quote from the article to which we will make reference in a moment:
[T]he content of this article is unlikely to offend or annoy any of the readers, while at the same time providing ample material for discussion and critique
And the counter-argument, making reference to the quote goes that impassioned debate can not be had unless the subject matter of the article or the position the author presents is unpalatable to some, such that opposing views can be offered by readers who feel honestly and strongly in alternative positions.

This comment should be rated '5' because not only does it provide a compelling counter-argument to the position set fourth by the article author, but it also provides what the article does not - an aggressive tone inciting further debate, making this comment a more valuable and meaningful contribution to the Kuro5hin community than the article itself.

--CTH


--Got Lists? | Top 31 Signs Your Spouse Is A Spy
I disagree. (4.00 / 3) (#49)
by hjw on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 03:15:06 PM EST

I remember being passed a copy of 'Class War', an anarchist newspaper. The person who passed it was a confident, well educated intellectual who had a lot of interesting things to say about the unfairness of capitalism.

When he gave it to me he said 'Take a look at this Har, you might like it - you're intelligent'. Which is a subtle way of begging my agreement with him, or proclaiming my lack of intelligence.

Likewise, This would be a mistake of the first order, however, as a careful reader will clearly see that the subject of this article is its own worth. Which has no supporting argument, and would suggest that anyone who doesn't see the worth of the artcile is not a careful reader. Had I seen this article in the que, I would have voted it to it's section.

A well written and clearly structured argument is important. However, so is a poorly written important argument. Room for improvement can be observed in any article or comment posted on Kuroshin. It is important for us to strive for importance, but it is also important for us to make that extra effort to see to the lincpin of any argument, no matter how poorly it's written. All ideas are equally important, at least in the sense that they should all be considered.

This article is well written and well thought out. However it is not free of flaws, and provides very little to me over what is available in the faq.

So there you have it. hjw

qpt's diary (4.66 / 6) (#50)
by Best Ace on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 03:18:26 PM EST

I feel it is only right to add a link to the latest diary entry of the article's author, in which he reveals his true reasons for posting.

This happened in student government (4.00 / 1) (#59)
by GoingWare on Wed Oct 24, 2001 at 03:04:58 PM EST

When I was a student senator at Armijo High School in the early 80's, someone submitted a proposal for a club called "Prospective Students of Universties" to the student senate - new clubs had to be ratified by the senate before they could be established at the school.

The charter that was submitted was the most amazing hogwash. I remember something along the lines of how they would have exacting membership criteria, and those who weren't admitted would be henceforth deemed "losers".

But, being a zealot about wanting to get into a good school (I was aiming for MIT but ended up at CalTech), I thought this was a pretty good idea.

After a brief debate a bill was enacted to establish the club.

Then it came out that the purpose of submitting the club was to prove the senate would pass anything.

Of course those behind it were some of the school's top students.


I am the K5 user now known as MichaelCrawford. I am not my corporation.


[ Parent ]

Article lacks critical information (4.70 / 10) (#51)
by trixx on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 03:27:17 PM EST

It is a good critic, but it lacks a reference to the article it is critizicing. Because of that, we can only access the author's biased opinion, but not the original source of information.

However, I have looked it up, so here is a link to the referred article (titled "+1, Front Page").

qpt... (3.45 / 11) (#52)
by DJBongHit on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 05:44:11 PM EST

Please take your idiocity back to adequacy.org, the stupidest site on the internet, where it belongs.

~DJBongHit

--
GNU GPL: Free as in herpes.

wow (5.00 / 3) (#53)
by bobsquatch on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 07:14:07 AM EST

Did you really just say "idiocity" while flaming somebody else for idiocy? Tell me you're joking.

[ Parent ]
LOL (none / 0) (#54)
by DJBongHit on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 09:35:26 AM EST

Did you really just say "idiocity" while flaming somebody else for idiocy? Tell me you're joking.

LOL. I suck.

~DJBongHit

--
GNU GPL: Free as in herpes.

[ Parent ]
You suck (none / 0) (#55)
by wiredog on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 11:35:54 AM EST

If you're taking bong hits, then you definitely suck!

If there's a choice between performance and ease of use, Linux will go for performance every time. -- Jerry Pournelle
[ Parent ]
Bong hits (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by DJBongHit on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 11:50:56 AM EST

If you're taking bong hits, then you definitely suck!

I wish. I'm in Knoxville for a new job, and I don't have any way of getting bud here, so I haven't smoked in quite awhile. :(

~DJBongHit

--
GNU GPL: Free as in herpes.

[ Parent ]
lack of bud (none / 0) (#57)
by juln on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 01:01:05 PM EST

now THAT sucks.

[ Parent ]
Topical Book (2.50 / 2) (#60)
by GoingWare on Wed Oct 24, 2001 at 03:16:08 PM EST

To anyone who would like to explore this topic further, I'd like to recommend:

A fantasizing exploration of self reference, GEB got modded up in its own way shortly after its publication - it won the Pulitzer prize.

And lest any of you miss it, don't forget to check this article's author's diary entry for the easter eag!


I am the K5 user now known as MichaelCrawford. I am not my corporation.


Why did gpt do this? (1.50 / 2) (#61)
by ktheory on Wed Oct 24, 2001 at 03:38:14 PM EST

Why would a community member try to make the community look stupid? Any attention this thread gets validates gpt's opinion that kuro5hin is stupid.

Who cares about something as banal as the writing style of a web site submission that has no relevance to anything else? Does gpt think that self-referential writing is original or clever, or even valuable? The true reason for this article is to boost gpt's ego at the expense of kuro5hin.

Way to go gpt. We're all impressed.

bland... (none / 0) (#63)
by dazzle on Thu May 30, 2002 at 05:10:34 AM EST

much like the net - self-referential, bland and unimportant.

---
the internet: a global network of small minded people


+1, Front Page | 63 comments (50 topical, 13 editorial, 2 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!