On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:42:24 -0800, Nicholas Knight nknight@runawaynet.com wrote:
Skyring wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:00:08 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Skyring said:
If you want Autofellatio, you have to find it for yourself. You can't honestly expect to be offended by something you have gone out of your way to find.
At this point somebody can be relied upon to object to this statement on the grounds that pressing the random article button may deliver an article that X or Y user thinks outrages public decency.
Yeah, well I thought of that, but it's not a likely outcome. You'd have to stroke the button long and rapidly before you came across an objectionable image. And it's not something that can easily be
The nature of random numbers means such a claim is patently ridiculous. You cannot predict how many clicks it could take. It could take 1 or 1,000,000. Or even an infinite number.
reproduced. Reverend Hardmind might claim that he pressed random and up popped a beaver, but his parishioners are going to find that they press the same button and get [[Flannel]].
Except you can't predict that.
I can and do. I predict that people pressing the [Random Article] button are NOT going to get [Autofellatio].
Every person that hits that link from now to judgement day could land on [[Random number generator]]. This is the nature of randomness.
I accept the nit-picking points you are making.