Ending in ? does not a question make December 30, 2011 3:31 AM   Subscribe

Where does a question like this fall on the ok/not ok continuum?

It seems very obviously not a use of AskMe to answer a question, and more a "here's an underhanded pitch, guys, make me laugh with zombie jokes."
posted by resiny to Etiquette/Policy at 3:31 AM (69 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

It's quirky, but frasermoo doesn't have any sort of record of using Ask Metafilter for lulz, and I don't think that's what he's doing here. I got the feeling he was just sorting things on his Kindle, the question struck him, and he asked. I looked at it once or twice, and felt like he/the question deserved the benefit of the doubt.

If I had seen other deleted questions from him that were obviously goofing around, that would have probably tipped the balance the other way, but there's nothing like that, either in questions or answers from him, over many years of using the site. So, not a typical run of the mill question, but from my perspective, it doesn't actually break guidelines.
posted by taz (staff) at 3:45 AM on December 30, 2011


The post needs to stay, if only for XMLicious' inconceivable answer.

Since the invention of the answer there have been five that were rated the most accurate. The most pure. That one leaves them all behind...
posted by zarq at 4:03 AM on December 30, 2011 [6 favorites]


Yeah, categorizations are tricky. If I had the same book and the same three folders, I'd be stumped as well. It could be question on a course in information science.
posted by Kattullus at 4:05 AM on December 30, 2011


It falls roughly here: (_)*(_)
posted by tumid dahlia at 4:09 AM on December 30, 2011


Deleting that question would have led to a similar, but opposite MeTa being posted here.
posted by gman at 4:13 AM on December 30, 2011 [7 favorites]


Where does one place the over thought plate of beans? It's so confusing.
posted by doctor_negative at 4:42 AM on December 30, 2011


I had the same doubts, but for please-god-get-me-through-the-holidays-with-my-sanity-intact chatfilter fodder the scope seems to be on the narrow side, while on the other hand the question might work as an inquiry into a real-life categorisation problem using an extreme example.
posted by rjs at 4:59 AM on December 30, 2011


It's a silly question, in my opinion. But I asked a questions about how long one could live on guacamole and mailing a taco, so what do I know?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:17 AM on December 30, 2011 [3 favorites]


It's an awesome library/information science question :)
posted by pointystick at 5:26 AM on December 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


Maybe it's just my categorization OCD speaking but I think it's a valid and interesting AskMe.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 5:46 AM on December 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Did you ever mail that taco?
posted by bluefly at 5:49 AM on December 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


resiny: " It seems very obviously not a use of AskMe to answer a question, and more a "here's an underhanded pitch, guys, make me laugh with zombie jokes." "

The first thing is that zombie jokes aren't answers to the question as posted (even if you interpret the question is just a veiled "lets make jokes lol"). More so, it is a question, and it's a small piece of a wider, more interesting question, which is: how do libraries treat these kinds of works? The Zombie Survival Guide is written as a factual reference book, but a reference book for a world (and circumstances) that don't exist. How would this differ from a hypothetical Post Canada-USA-Mexico Merger Survival Guide? Would one of these be somehow "legitimate" speculative reference and the other not?
posted by Plutor at 5:53 AM on December 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


(Not to mention that if you wanted zombie jokes, you could post a good AskMe asking for zombie jokes. My most popular AskMe was a request for jokes.)
posted by Plutor at 5:55 AM on December 30, 2011


The fact that the AskMe post (a) was not deleted, and (b) has serious answers should answer your question.
posted by mkultra at 5:58 AM on December 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


I disagree. I see no indication that the information the asker is seeking won't actually be applied. There is not one perfect answer, perhaps, but every response in that thread is giving an answer or making a case for a particular solution, even the ones answering in a humorous fashion. I think it's well-done all around, and nice to have a light-hearted question on the green.
posted by EvaDestruction at 6:07 AM on December 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Since I don't care much about either Kindles or zombies, I was inclined to place the question at meh on the continuum. However, some of the comments redeemed it and made it worthy.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:24 AM on December 30, 2011


It's a real, if goofy, question. Sometimes it's hard to imagine the way other people's minds work. If it turns into a bunch of stupid jokes, we'll axe the stupid jokes.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:35 AM on December 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


It's a damned stupid question and the OP clearly doesn't need help answering it if he has a functioning brain. I'm amazed it was allowed to take up space.
posted by Decani at 6:45 AM on December 30, 2011 [3 favorites]


Totally ok, AskMe has been host to all kinds of bar-style musing questions through the ages. How else would we know how to dispose of the body or whether "over the top" is better than "through the hole." Your judgement of the "seriousness" of a question is irrelevant. 1. There is a real question here. 2. It is answerable 3. Aside from a few jokey OMG ZOMBIES asides, there is an interesting conversation going on about how books are categorized.

A metafilter where this isn't ok is a metafilter I don't recognize and frankly I am surprised to see a moderator hanging a deletion decision over the poster's history and what they're guessing the poster's motivations are.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 6:50 AM on December 30, 2011 [3 favorites]


Seemed like a sincere question to me. And AskMe is a place where we tolerate people's quirky obsessions (and embarrassing ignorances, and even sometimes some lack of proper socialization).
Also, now we'll all know where to find that book when we stumble across his Kindle in the rubble.
posted by Mngo at 6:56 AM on December 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


I think a variation of this ("how the hell has this not been deleted as chatfilter?") at least four times a day. I did not think that about this question, however, because there are systems and principles for classification which can be discussed and applied in this case. Although I personally think the answer is obvious, sometimes. Ask.Mes sometimes have answers which are obvious to everyone but the person asking.

I did wonder how much clean-up the answers would require
posted by crush-onastick at 7:02 AM on December 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Decani: "It's a damned stupid question and the OP clearly doesn't need help answering it if he has a functioning brain."

Yeah, yeah. When the apocalypse comes, we all know you'll be the first guy placing bulk orders from Ace Hardware's Zombie Preparedness Center.
posted by zarq at 7:10 AM on December 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


Slarty Bartfast: "or whether "over the top" is better than "through the hole.""

I still don't understand those "through the hole" savages. Filthy animals.
posted by Plutor at 7:13 AM on December 30, 2011


I am surprised to see a moderator hanging a deletion decision over the poster's history and what they're guessing the poster's motivations are.

We have a small subset of users who seem to view their weekly question as a requirement and not a maximum and ask vague sort of "just wondering" questions over and over. Not a huge deal, but in the past some of these folks [and I'm talking one or two] have turned out to be shared-accounts "asking for the lulz" situations that have wound up being problematic. So it's not like if you've asked a few similar questions in the past, it's a problem, but more like if you're someone who doesn't have a history of goofing on the site, there is no reason for us to start thinking you might be doing something like that now. We don't usually bring this sort of thing up unless someone has specifically asked, but it's one of the many things that go into an "Is this question okay" assessment, if people are asking.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:15 AM on December 30, 2011


I'm amazed it was allowed to take up space.

I would recommend not going outside then.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:31 AM on December 30, 2011


Yeah, this is definitely sort of on the chatty penumbra of what's okay but seems to be an actual attempt to figure out a reference/categorization problem. I'm not surprised it's turned up a few eyebrows but I'm okay with it sticking around.

So it's not like if you've asked a few similar questions in the past, it's a problem, but more like if you're someone who doesn't have a history of goofing on the site, there is no reason for us to start thinking you might be doing something like that now.

Yeah, exactly. One of the many things that gets thought about a little bit on stuff that's a little borderline, because for the most part it's not an issue but every now and then it is a "you seem to be doing this sort of thing a lot" situation where we end up having to draw the line with someone and have a talk about how they habitually approach askme.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:34 AM on December 30, 2011


I'm glad someone opened this Meta, because the only good place to put that book is in the trash (which admittedly, the Kindle doesn't have, but still).

That book was such a disappointment. It read like with was written by a precocious tween with the encouragement of his 8th-grade English teacher. Possibly his gym teacher.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 7:48 AM on December 30, 2011


I was going to flag it. But I've given up flagging what I consider chatfilter as it seems to be on the rise and my efforts have been for naught. It seems that even if a question is chatty, once it has 10 or so comments it will stand regardless.
posted by chairface at 9:03 AM on December 30, 2011


Zombies aren't real. The book's fiction.
Actually, zombies are real -- really, really spent as cultural concern. I'm far more terrified of Republicans.
posted by philip-random at 9:23 AM on December 30, 2011


Actually, zombies are real -- really, really spent as cultural concern. I'm far more terrified of Republicans.

Sadly, I doubt The Republican Apocalypse Survival Guide would be any less fiction. Sophisticated projections suggest there will be no survivors.

I was disappointed by the OP's use of single quotes rather than italics to indicate a monograph title. To the MLA Handbook with you!
posted by GenjiandProust at 9:43 AM on December 30, 2011


It's chatty as hell, but since the subject matter appeals to MeFites, it's not going to get flagged at all.
posted by 23skidoo at 9:47 AM on December 30, 2011


It just needs a new AskMe category: First World Problems.
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:25 AM on December 30, 2011


Imaginary World Problems.
posted by philip-random at 10:27 AM on December 30, 2011


I have a feeling that if the question had been posed in more strait-laced terms (and omitted the terms "Kindle" and "zombie") it wouldn't be getting slammed as chatty or chat-filter. As one commenter pointed out, it can be read as "where should I shelve Ostensibly Very Serious books of debated factual merit, and/or books where there is reason from outside the work - but not from within it - to think the author does not genuinely believe what they write." And the answers that have been given (most of them) are legitimate answers about how librarians and other info-classification types deal with this kind of thing, like this one:
-harlequin- has it. Librarians put UFO books, astrology books, cure-your-cancer-with-positive-thinking books, etc., in nonfiction not because they're true, but because it's presented as information. I know not what Library of Congress may do, but NYPL has the Zombie Survival Guide as a nonfiction book (albeit classified in 818.602, close to John Hodgman's "That Is All" and "Wearing of this Garment Does Not Enable You To Fly: 101 Real Dumb Label Warnings.")

This prevents librarians from having to argue with people about whether their religious books belong in "fiction" or "nonfiction." It's not a statement of truth value or usefulness.

That's not to say whether it would be most useful to you in one category or the other.
On preview: First World Problems? Imaginary World Problems? FFS, if that's what you think I hope you have the good grace to refrain form using libraries or other information sources where somebody had to think about how to classify the information to make it useable and findable by the people who need it.
posted by Lexica at 10:32 AM on December 30, 2011 [5 favorites]


There is an actual question there and just because, in your opinion, it is of little importance it is not "very obviously" a stunt. There was another recent question about musical genres and it is hard to see how this is much different. It is a classic "help me decide what to do" question.
posted by soelo at 10:44 AM on December 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


I have a feeling that if the question had been posed in more strait-laced terms (and omitted the terms "Kindle" and "zombie") it wouldn't be getting slammed as chatty or chat-filter.

Well sure, if the guy asked a completely different question than the one he asked, then it would be a completely different question. The question he asked wasn't "How do librarians classify certain books so that other people can find them?", the question was "How should I classify a certain book, a book whose classification will never be used by anyone ever to find the book, seeing as how it's on my Kindle?".
posted by 23skidoo at 10:45 AM on December 30, 2011


On preview: First World Problems? Imaginary World Problems? FFS, if that's what you think I hope you have the good grace to refrain form using libraries or other information sources where somebody had to think about how to classify the information to make it useable and findable by the people who need it.

Useable & findable like a private citizen finding a book on their Kindle that they themselves filed there? Note that the OP is not, in fact, a public library service.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:03 AM on December 30, 2011


I can't remember where I file my stuff half the time. That's why I'm developing an elaborate cross-referencing system in anticipation of the implementation of favorites tagging.
posted by EvaDestruction at 11:22 AM on December 30, 2011


I am glad that the question was asked and answered, as I had never considered the possibility of an "actively reading" collection on my Kindle before today.

And as zarq said, it must stay because XMLicious' inconceivable answer is the best of the web.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 11:41 AM on December 30, 2011


When I first saw the question I was thinking it was a joke/chatfilter post but, when I read the answers I learned something or at least they made me think about reference books and how the Bible or Koran are classified. To some the Bible/Koran are no less silly than the Zombie book or wild conspiracy theory books.
posted by Carbolic at 11:56 AM on December 30, 2011


Imaginary World Problems

AskMe, ever since this witch moved in its been always winter but never Christmas, what can I do to return the great lion to the land?
posted by The Whelk at 12:31 PM on December 30, 2011 [8 favorites]


What does it being only for his own use have to do with anything? Do you guys expect to someday find duvatney's cat for yourselves?
posted by jacalata at 1:35 PM on December 30, 2011 [4 favorites]


What does it being only for his own use have to do with anything?

Dude, no one said "All questions whose answers can only be used by one person are bad." People did say "How should I personally categorize a book?" is a totally different question than "How do librarians classify books so that people can find them?" Just because the second question isn't chatty doesn't mean that the first one isn't chatty.
posted by 23skidoo at 2:29 PM on December 30, 2011


really, really spent as cultural concern. I'm far more terrified of Republicans.

Republicans are really really spent as a cultural concern. I'm more terrified of Democrats, ever since they became the exact same thing as Republicans.
posted by drjimmy11 at 4:58 PM on December 30, 2011


And for the record, I would have said, "fiction," except that "fiction" implies the author has done something creative.
posted by drjimmy11 at 5:00 PM on December 30, 2011


AskMe questions should have a purpose, goal, or problem to be solved.

The question is within those guidelines. Yes, it could easily slide into chatfilter, jokes, etc., but as jessamyn stated above it's easy enough to axe any silliness.
posted by deborah at 5:03 PM on December 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Is my zombie book nonfiction (um, no) or fiction (um, yes) or reference (in a sense, maybe) struck me as chatfilter as well. But I can see how it's borderline -- it's a real problem capable of being answered -- and borderline questions don't have to be deleted or else they wouldn't be borderline.
posted by J. Wilson at 5:15 PM on December 30, 2011


Valid question, just because it's light-hearted doesn't mean it's not valid. I have also spent time creating folders on my Kindle and wished for tags.
posted by arcticseal at 10:30 PM on December 30, 2011


My concept of what "chatfilter" is seems quite a bit out of alignment of what a lot of other people understand it to mean—not only do I not see this question as chatfilter, I don't even see it as "borderline" or "on the chatty penumbra of what's OK." Here's the chatfilter guideline. I fail to see how this question even comes close to any of those criteria, so could someone explain how they see the question as chatfilter, or even borderline? Note that "tends to invite jokey answers" is not one of the criteria.

The question he asked wasn't "How do librarians classify certain books so that other people can find them?", the question was "How should I classify a certain book, a book whose classification will never be used by anyone ever to find the book, seeing as how it's on my Kindle?".

And you think the principles used to answer the first question are entirely inapplicable to the second? True, the ultimate answer to "how do I classify this book given that this is a classification system that only I will be using" is "put it wherever you are most likely to look for it in the future," but if Frasermoo knew where they were most likely to look for it in the future they wouldn't be asking the question, so then the principles used to answer "how librarians do it in libraries" comes into play.

Not that that affects my main point anyway—even if those principles were entirely inapplicable, it would only make those responses irrelevant and deleteworthy, but still wouldn't make the question chatfilter. ("Several respondents are not answering the question which was asked" is also not one of that chatfilter criteria.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 5:35 AM on January 3, 2012 [1 favorite]


For me, it's largely a framing issue. I characterizaed it as penumbral not on account of the core question as I understand it—that seems totally fine and answerable and so yay askme—but the lack of a clear "this is why I'm asking" context for a question that as stated reads a lot like a discussion prompt or poll.

If there had been a little clarification in the question itself about where Frasermoo was coming from, what context they were trying to find that solution in, what standing decisions they'd already made about classifying other blurring-the-categorical-lines works they owned if any, etc., then I wouldn't even have blinked. As it is, I blinked but thought that all in all an answerable question was probably going to get sussed out of the kind of slight framing.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:01 AM on January 3, 2012


And you think the principles used to answer the first question are entirely inapplicable to the second? True, the ultimate answer to "how do I classify this book given that this is a classification system that only I will be using" is "put it wherever you are most likely to look for it in the future," but if Frasermoo knew where they were most likely to look for it in the future they wouldn't be asking the question, so then the principles used to answer "how librarians do it in libraries" comes into play.

Yes, I think the principles used the answer the first one are completely inapplicable to the second because all the libraries in the world could classify the book a certain way, but that doesn't matter at all if that classification is unmemorable to him. Saying that the ultimate answer is "put it where you are most likely to look for it in the future" is in my mind saying that all answers are equally valid, which is one of the characteristics of chatty questions in the FAQ you linked to.
posted by 23skidoo at 10:55 AM on January 3, 2012


cortex: Thanks for the clarification.

Yes, I think the principles used the answer the first one are completely inapplicable to the second because all the libraries in the world could classify the book a certain way, but that doesn't matter at all if that classification is unmemorable to him.

While true, that's an awfully big "if" your argument relies on. Yes, if Frasermoo's mind works differently than millions and millions of library users, then library classification may be irrelevant, but that hasn't been demonstrated. We can't be certain that how LC or NYPL thinks many many people will try to find a book is related to how Frasermoo will try to find it, but it's not an unreasonable basis on which to answer.

To me, that's like if Frasermoo asked "I have this recipe but the amount of salt has been smudged out...how much salt should I add?" and you objected that all answers to the question were equally valid because some people can't taste salt, and if Frasermoo can't taste salt then it doesn't matter how much or little they add.

Saying that the ultimate answer is "put it where you are most likely to look for it in the future" is in my mind saying that all answers are equally valid

Really? I don't see that at all. For example, "create a new folder called 'humor' and put it there" is a valid, defensible answer. "Create a new folder called '13th Century Tasmanian history' and put it there" is not "equally valid." Yes, maybe there's two or three people in the world who would first look for The Zombie Survival Guide under "13th Century Tasmanian history," and we can't say for sure that Frasermoo isn't one of those people. But the fact that we cannot prove "Humor" to be the right answer with 100% certainty, nor dismiss "13th Century Tasmanian history" with 100% certainty, does not make them "equally valid."
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:42 PM on January 3, 2012


Yes, if Frasermoo's mind works differently than millions and millions of library users, then library classification may be irrelevant, but that hasn't been demonstrated.

I think the answers that thread demonstrate that people want to classify that book any number of different ways. That sample says to me that "how libraries do it" is not the only metric that people use for deciding how to classify their own books.

But the fact that we cannot prove "Humor" to be the right answer with 100% certainty, nor dismiss "13th Century Tasmanian history" with 100% certainty, does not make them "equally valid."

The question wasn't "What should I call the new folder where I stick this book", it was "Choose Fiction, Nonfiction or Reference as the classification for this book".
posted by 23skidoo at 1:15 PM on January 3, 2012


That sample says to me that "how libraries do it" is not the only metric that people use for deciding how to classify their own books.

No disagreement with you there. I'm not saying that "how libraries do it" is the One And Only Answer to Frasermoo's question. I'm saying it's relevant information that may be helpful to Frasermoo in making their decision.

The question wasn't "What should I call the new folder where I stick this book", it was "Choose Fiction, Nonfiction or Reference as the classification for this book".

First of all, proposing alternative solutions which the Asker had not considered is generally allowed (and sometimes even appreciated, as seems to be the case here, judging by Frasermoo's response). To take my previous analogy further, suppose Frasermoo had said "I can't tell if it says 1 tsp. salt or 1 tbsp. salt...which would be better?" An answer that said "Are you sure it's not 2 tsp.? Because I've got a recipe that matches yours in every respect and it calls for 2 tsp. salt" would be perfectly fine and allowed to stand.

But even if that weren't the case, and answers were required to be limited to only the options proposed by the Asker—even if respondents were to limit their answers to either "1 tsp., because..." or "1 tbsp., because..."—that still wouldn't be chatfilter, IMO, even if there was no consensus among respondents to the answer, nor any objective way to determine a "correct" answer. But perhaps you would consider it chatfilter on the grounds that "all answers are equally valid," if I'm understanding you correctly?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:51 PM on January 3, 2012


final paragraph above should say "...even if respondents were required to limit their answers..."
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:56 PM on January 3, 2012


But even if that weren't the case, and answers were required to be limited to only the options proposed by the Asker—even if respondents were to limit their answers to either "1 tsp., because..." or "1 tbsp., because..."—that still wouldn't be chatfilter, IMO, even if there was no consensus among respondents to the answer, nor any objective way to determine a "correct" answer. But perhaps you would consider it chatfilter on the grounds that "all answers are equally valid," if I'm understanding you correctly?

I think we're getting too far away from the real question now. There's no danger of oversalting a book by choosing a classification that you won't remember, and there's no recipe anywhere to make a classification seem more memorable. But yeah, if there's only three answers to an AskMe, and there's no explanation as to any criterion the asker will be using to select the answer that resonates with him, I call that chatfilter.
posted by 23skidoo at 2:35 PM on January 3, 2012


Yes, I think maybe that's narrowing in on the issue—I've made the assumption that Frasermoo's goal was to make the book as easy to find as possible at some future point, but that wasn't stated by Frasermoo, and is perhaps an unwarranted assumption. Which is kind of cortex's point, and I can at least see a "borderline" call if I didn't make that assumption.

OTOH, I'm still not sure I follow you entirely—what if the question were about Pride and Prejudice rather than The Zombie Survival Guide, and the respondents unanimously agreed it should go in Fiction? Would you consider that question to be chatfilter also?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:27 PM on January 3, 2012


No, I wouldn't call that chatfilter, but to me that question would read as "How *SHOULD* I categorize this book", whereas the question in question seems much more like "How should *I* categorize this book". YMMV, which is fine.
posted by 23skidoo at 5:18 PM on January 3, 2012


OK, thanks for the discussion. I still don't agree, but at least now I think I have a better understanding of why some people's idea of what constitutes chatfilter seems about a hundred times broader than mine. I no longer find the viewpoint absolutely, totally, and in all other ways inconceivable.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:43 PM on January 3, 2012


Hooray!
posted by 23skidoo at 6:50 PM on January 3, 2012


This seems like an excellent time to ask - if I have a section of my bookshelf for french language textbooks and references, and a section for fantasy novels, where does a french language fantasy novel (that will almost certainly require at least a dictionary to read) belong?

(Note: this is an actual dilemma)
posted by jacalata at 6:57 PM on January 3, 2012


You just have to pick one option and be happy with it. This is why people love ebooks. Put the damned zombie book in both folders, folders aren't real.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:08 PM on January 3, 2012


The way you describe it, jacalata, it doesn't sound that hard to me: A French-language fantasy novel is not a French-language textbook or reference, so it doesn't go there. A French-language fantasy novel is a fantasy novel, so it goes there.

(But perhaps what you describe as "french language textbooks and references" could just as well be described as "French language books" if those are all the French language books you have. That is, I see your dilemma if you do not have any French-language books which are not reference books or textbooks, other than the one novel in question. But if you do have other French-language books which are not textbooks or reference books, what have you done with them?)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:09 PM on January 3, 2012


I am currently rearranging my entire bookshelf and therefore the whole group of books written in french is under scrutiny. It bothers me because my instinctive placement of the books depends on whether the language used in a particular book is difficult for me (and hence would be read more in the spirit of 'improving my french language skills') or is easy, and would be read as 'a fantasy novel'. (Or too easy, like the older children's books I have, when I also lean back towards placing them in the language section as 'language learning aids').
posted by jacalata at 7:36 PM on January 3, 2012


jessamyn: Put the damned zombie book in both folders, folders aren't real.

Therein lies the problem, of course, because so aren't zombies.
posted by Kattullus at 6:54 AM on January 4, 2012 [1 favorite]


Wait... should that have been "so are zombies?" When agreeing with a negative, should the the agreement be negative or positive?
posted by Kattullus at 6:56 AM on January 4, 2012


The boring answer is "use 'neither are'". But "so aren't" is more fun.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:59 AM on January 4, 2012


Here is an onomatopoeic representation of my thought process four and a half hours ago: durrrrrrrr...
posted by Kattullus at 11:31 AM on January 4, 2012


jacalata: rearrange your bookshelf so the French books sit alongside the fantasy books, then put your French fantasy book on the border of the two sections.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:36 AM on January 4, 2012


« Older If your website is full of assholes, it's your...   |   EditMe Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments