“test”
Objective versus Subjective Lists
“I think the rule is pretty easy, but if it isn't clear, maybe some more examples would help. In each of these examples, the
objective list is not a good fit for the site because there is a correct ordering of the items in the list. Because the ordering of items in lists on this site are determined by votes, on lists where there is a correct order, the voting functionality of the site can makes these lists incorrect.
Example 1:
Objective list: NFL Quarterbacks with the Most Touchdown Passes
Subjective List: Best NFL Quarterback of All Time
Example 2:
Objective List: Top Ten Best Selling Playstation 2 Games
Subjective List: Most Entertaining Playstation 2 Games
Example 3
Objective List: My Favorite Michael Jackson Songs
Subjective List: The Top Ten Michael Jackson Songs
Example 4
Objective List: Top Ten Longest Led Zeppelin Songs
Subjective List: Top Ten Led Zeppelin Songs That Should Be Longer ”
Why L’Arc~en~Ciel Is Not On The List Of Best Bands With Colorful Names
“5 dissenting comments and multiple new add attempts later, I get the impression that I didn’t do a good job of explaining why L’Arc~en~Ciel is not, and will not, be placed on this list. So I’ll try again.
People continue to point out that a rainbow is a colorful thing. I agree. But that is not the issue.
When you look at the phrase “Best Bands with Colorful Names”, the word “Colorful” is an adjective that modifies the noun “Names”. As such, it is the name of the band that needs to be colorful. In the case of the name L’Arc~en~Ciel, the thing that is colorful is the rainbow, not the name of the band. There is a degree of separation that needs to be accounted for.
Allowing L’Arc~en~Ciel on this list by the logic presented in the comments would also mean that bands such as Iron Butterfly, The Chameleons, and Prince and The Revolution would all have to be on the list “Cos you can’t deny” that butterflies, chameleons, and Prince are very colorful things.”
Michael Vick and Pit Bulls, I'm Disgusted
“A few quick responses to the previous poster:
1) Yes I would still care about it. Anyone who had read the post could see that. In case the caption on the first picture is too small to read, that is my dog.
2) Once again, anyone who read the post would know that I am in no way implying that Michael Vick is the only one who participates in dog fighting. Of course he is a posterboy, that's the point.
3) By your third question, are you implying that as long as there is something worse happening in the world, it is not worth talking about the lesser evils? In that case, Bush is not even worth mentioning in comparison to the 2 million people who will die of AIDS in Africa this year alone. Save one topic, there is always something worse that you could blog about. Does that really mean that this lone topic is the only one worth discussion?
Finally, yes, Pit Bulls were bred for fighting but the result was an intelligent, athletic, eager to please breed of dog. What was not bred into the dogs was aggression, hate, and malice. Those traits are learned. Pit bulls are merely a victim of perception, the type of perception that "posterboys" like Michael Vick reinforce. ”