Timeline for Can we restrict the ability of users to keep changing their names?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 28, 2014 at 14:32 | comment | added | Pollyanna | Who's @polly? ;) | |
| Dec 6, 2011 at 7:53 | comment | added | Herbert | @AdamDavis: +1 for FLT reference. | |
| Feb 15, 2011 at 20:51 | comment | added | RichardTheKiwi | @polly I thought there really was some reference that could be understood with background knowledge. Color me disappointed. | |
| Feb 15, 2011 at 20:39 | comment | added | Pollyanna | @cyberkiwi - It's a joke. It means nothing. It was made to point out the absurdity of the idea that people should expect others to understand what they are saying based on who they are and what they've written before. | |
| Feb 15, 2011 at 20:36 | comment | added | RichardTheKiwi | @polly - Right. That helps... | |
| Feb 15, 2011 at 20:35 | comment | added | Pollyanna | @cyberkiwi I have a marvelous explanation for the phrase which this comment box is too small to contain. Please refer to my voluminous works for translation. | |
| Feb 15, 2011 at 19:44 | comment | added | RichardTheKiwi |
@Polly, @John Can someone explain Ponies coalesce iridescence skeet ??
|
|
| Nov 16, 2009 at 21:08 | comment | added | John Rudy | @Adam: +1 each for "commentitude" and "Ponies coalesce iridescence skeet." | |
| Nov 16, 2009 at 21:03 | comment | added | Pollyanna | This comment can be understood fully only if you've read all my other posts and comments on this and all other SO sites: "Ponies coalesce iridescence skeet." Please refer to my voluminous works for translation. | |
| Nov 16, 2009 at 21:00 | comment | added | Pollyanna | If a thought or expression requires more than 500 characters to describe, one may post several comments, or more appropriately, post a whole answer. I still don't see a reason to post half-formed comments and expect your readers to remember your name and fill in the blanks based on other work you've posted. How can you even expect them to read all your posts? | |
| Nov 16, 2009 at 20:56 | comment | added | oxbow_lakes | @Adam - who is able to clearlt articulate their thoughts in 500 characters? The internet is not a great medium within which to avoid ambiguity of intent! | |
| Nov 16, 2009 at 20:54 | comment | added | Pollyanna | @Shog9 - thank you for pointing out that comment's importance. I've upvoted it so it may stand above the others, as the shining beacon of commentitude we all should strive for. Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! | |
| Nov 16, 2009 at 20:52 | comment | added | Pollyanna | "knowing the personality/background of a poster is important" - Only if the poster is unable to clearly and fully articulate their thoughts, or if the reader is intent on sussing out some hidden intent, agenda, or meaning. Otherwise there is no need for additional background knowledge. | |
| Nov 16, 2009 at 20:50 | comment | added | Shog9 | @oxbow_lakes: half the content may well be in comments, but it's the unimportant half. Except for this comment. This comment is very, very important. | |
| Nov 16, 2009 at 20:42 | comment | added | oxbow_lakes | It's not just questions and answers though, is it? Half the content now seems to be in comments. And meta in particular is much more opinion-focused than SO itself - knowing the personality/background of a poster is important. | |
| Nov 16, 2009 at 20:37 | comment | added | Pollyanna | It does break commenting, but commenting is a secondary feature that was added only under extreme duress anyway... | |
| Nov 16, 2009 at 20:35 | comment | added | John Rudy | This right here's the answer. | |
| Nov 16, 2009 at 20:35 | comment | added | Pollyanna | Offensive, confusing, or user names in bad taste can be handed via the existing mechanisms of post flagging. | |
| Nov 16, 2009 at 20:33 | history | answered | Pollyanna | CC BY-SA 2.5 |